atahabaki
commented
1 year ago I apologize for any confusion caused. As the developer, I admit that back when I developed the YouTube Search Engine Firefox add-on, I was not familiar with git and version control systems. Therefore, at that time, I created the archived firefox-yt-addon repository and pushed the source code there.
Regarding the absence of a direct link to the repository from the add-on page, I understand your concerns. It's important to provide transparency and easy access to the source code, especially for extensions claiming to be open source. I acknowledge that not including a link to the repository may raise red flags for users, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
At the time of developing the add-on, I didn't have the foresight to consider the importance of linking the repository from the add-on page. Additionally, since the repository is now archived, its usefulness may be limited compared to an active repository. However, I agree that even an archived repository can still offer valuable insights.
I appreciate your feedback, and I apologize for any frustration this may have caused. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know.
keikoro
@atahabaki I can't open an issue on the archived firefox-yt-addon repo, so I'm asking here:
Is what's contained in there the source of the YouTube Search Engine Firefox add-on? Based on the extension's purpose, it would seem so, but the add-on page doesn't provide a link to its source code – which I personally always find red flaggy, especially for extensions which claim to be open source – and the files in the repo were updated much more recently than the extension.
If this is what the add-on is based on, is there a reason why you didn't link the repo from the add-on page? I get that an archived repo is less helpful to users than an active one, but would still find a link better than no link.