[callahad]

> clearly are targeting this new replacement browser for version 69 in a few months.

That is incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of our release model.

> What they haven't done is given a clear statement.

The clearest statement is this dev-platform post from April, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform..., which includes a link to a much more detailed project planning document.

> Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support.

That's because we are not yet ready to make public commitments. Honest. We're building the app and its underlying embedding library (GeckoView) from scratch, and as with all new greenfield projects, we're still working on getting the foundation right. It's simply too early to forecast how that specific design and development work will play out.

[bscphil]

>> Nothing about if their replacement is going to drop extension support.

>That's because we are not yet ready to make public commitments. Honest.

Surely you can understand how this isn't good enough for most addon users, right? You've already announced Firefox for Android is going to be deprecated. And you're "not ready to make public commitments" about whether the replacement is going to support extensions?? That's obviously not acceptable to addon users.

If Mozilla's policy is that they simply don't care what users think, then whatever, it doesn't matter what's acceptable to addon users. I'm writing this under the presumption that at least someone in the Mozilla org does care about this.

[acrispino]

Speaking generally, in development, some features are considered must-have even though much of roadmap may be unclear, right?

So why isn't extension support considered a must-have?

[krageon]

The fact that you won't commit to saying your core advantage on Android will stay has to mean to me, as a user, that I need to be finding an alternative that does have it.