Thanks Gary! mskadu, there's an item on the Roadmap Proposals wiki page under "Stabilization of Current Feature Set" for getting Ubiquity on AMO as a non-experimental addon. That's a good point about at least getting it into the experimental sandbox though, if we put it on there with the stated intention that it shouldn't be let out of the sandbox because of known security issues. Does anyone want to look into doing this?
- Atul On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:43 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious as to (still) why there are no plans to make Ubiquity > available on FF addons site - addons.mozilla.org (even if as a > experimental addon)? > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Gary Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Atul - for me, that wiki page sums up the proposals very well! >> Sufficiently detailed to understand what motivates each goal, a good range >> of targets, without sounding like a wishy-washy 'mission statement'. >> If I think of more, I will certainly throw them on there for discussion. >> >> >> Regards, >> Gary >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Atul Varma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> It's clear that there's a lot of really awesome directions Ubiquity can >>> go, but it looks like we need to focus in on what particular directions we >>> want to take it over the next two months. As Aza has proposed, we can >>> innovate the user interface and mechanisms for allowing the community to >>> contribute to UI innovation; we could also work on the herd, like fern >>> suggested; and Gary makes a very good argument for stabilizing our current >>> feature set. >>> >>> I've created a work-in-progress 0.2 roadmap on the wiki here: >>> >>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Ubiquity/0.2_Roadmap_Proposals >>> >>> I've tried adding what people have mentioned here so far. If you guys >>> don't mind, could you please take a look at it and add anything that you >>> feel is necessary? Once we've got all our ideas down, we can start figuring >>> out how to pare things down based on Ubiquity's vision. Please also feel >>> free to justify your rationale for features that you're particularly >>> interested in. >>> >>> - Atul >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Abimanyu Raja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> The reason it's called The Herd: http://www.toolness.com/wp/?p=144 >>>> >>>> 2008/11/6 indolering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Can we call it something with better connotations than "The Herd?" >>>>> >>>>> I mean, the democrats lost, badly, for the past 8 years because they >>>>> failed to correctly frame (http://tiny.cc/frame448) their viewpoints >>>>> and evoke the right emotions, until Barak got them all excited with >>>>> his rhetoric. >>>>> >>>>> It's hard to get excited about being a cow : ( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and now we should get back on topic : ) >>>>> -Zak >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:39 am, "Abimanyu Raja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > Haha..yes. We should do that. >>>>> > >>>>> > 2008/11/4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > >>>>> > > Why not get Ubiquity on addons.mozilla.com in the first place? >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Abimanyu Raja < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Yep, the social aspects like on addons.mozilla.com should also be >>>>> part of >>>>> > >> The Herd, imo. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> I agree with Gary. That's why I wanted to include improving >>>>> performance as >>>>> > >> a major goal. Specifically, the tickets he mentioned, adding back >>>>> old >>>>> > >> features and replacing the annotation service. Regarding planning >>>>> for 0.2, I >>>>> > >> think it's just about setting the long term goals. In the end, >>>>> they have to >>>>> > >> be broken to smaller milestones as Aza said. So, I think that >>>>> performance >>>>> > >> issues, a goal for 0.2, should probably be the focus for 0.1.4 >>>>> (assuming >>>>> > >> 0.1.3 is focused on skinning). Or we should swap the focuses. >>>>> 0.1.3 should >>>>> > >> be for performance issues. I would really like the context menu >>>>> and >>>>> > >> noun-first suggestions back. And of course, we should really try >>>>> not to >>>>> > >> break people's current behavior (esp. noun-first suggestions). >>>>> > >>>>> > >> I feel like we need to delegate work (at least for a few key >>>>> issues) to >>>>> > >> make faster progress. >>>>> > >>>>> > >> - Abi >>>>> > >>>>> > >> 2008/11/4 Gary Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Hi guys, >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Whilst some of the goals for 0.2 sound fun, in my opinion there >>>>> are some >>>>> > >>> fundamentals that perhaps should be addressed beforehand. For >>>>> example, >>>>> > >>> reintroducing functionality that was lost with 0.1.2 (e.g. >>>>> tickets #358, >>>>> > >>> #359 & #394 are some I raised about this :-), stabilising the >>>>> codebase, and >>>>> > >>> addressing performance. Something else that really needs >>>>> addressing is the >>>>> > >>> trust-network and the way commands are subscribed to. I've read a >>>>> few blog >>>>> > >>> posts, and received a couple of emails, saying that the major >>>>> factor that is >>>>> > >>> stopping people from adopting Ubiquity is the security risk of >>>>> subscribing >>>>> > >>> to new commands. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Perhaps these are planned for a prior release, but considering >>>>> 0.1.2 was >>>>> > >>> about 6 weeks late, and 0.1.3 still has 28 active tickets, >>>>> planning 0.2 for >>>>> > >>> the end of 2008 seems a little over-ambitious. I don't want to >>>>> rain on the >>>>> > >>> parade - I love hacking away at new stuff with the best of them - >>>>> but >>>>> > >>> without some core stability I think the user base will lose >>>>> interest and >>>>> > >>> we'll be left with an interesting toy for a handful of people, >>>>> but no >>>>> > >>> wide-spread adoption. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Of course this is only my take on things, and perhaps not seeing >>>>> the >>>>> > >>> bigger picture :-) I hope these comments are taken in a positive >>>>> way. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Cheers >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Gary >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Fernando Takai < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > >>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, but herd needs to be improved. For example, we need to add >>>>> social >>>>> > >>>> features like rating, commenting -- and we need to have a place >>>>> to host >>>>> > >>>> commands, like gist, but ours. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Dean Landolt < >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Fernando Takai < >>>>> > >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ubiquity planet is like an addon.firefox.com for commands (if >>>>> im not >>>>> > >>>>>> mistaken). >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Wouldn't that be the Herd? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Typically planets are just aggregators for specific communities >>>>> of >>>>> > >>>>> interest [1] -- so of people that often blog about Ubiquity, >>>>> it's just one >>>>> > >>>>> central place that pulls in those posts. Unless you mean >>>>> something else, >>>>> > >>>>> Aza? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_(software)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_%28software%29> >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_%28software%29> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- >>>>> > >>>> Fernando "Takai" >>>>> > >>>>http://flickr.com/photos/supeertakai >>>>> > >>>>http://fernandotakai.wordpress.com >>>>> > >>>>http://fernandotakai.jaiku.com >>>>> > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > Mayuresh >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Mayuresh > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ubiquity-firefox" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ubiquity-firefox?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
