> given that they had the bug, Chrome was absolutely in the right to deny them the first time
Sure, but if that bug gets fixed, why reject the fix?
Also, if that's the bug that was the concern, it would certainly be nice to have something in the email along the lines of "We don't want extensions to ask for access to every website anywhere on the Internet, so please narrow your http and https permission request."
> they're too busy to explain to everyone what they're doing wrong
If a human flagged this, how much longer would it have taken to add the sentence above to the email? Or even write that instead of the useless generic boilerplate that's in the email?
If, OTOH, an automated bot flagged this (which is what I suspect, and what others seem to suspect too), why didn't whoever wrote the automated bot put at least some kind of clue in the script that writes the email? Something like "if bad thing #6 is found, add text XYZ to the email".
Sure, but if that bug gets fixed, why reject the fix?
Also, if that's the bug that was the concern, it would certainly be nice to have something in the email along the lines of "We don't want extensions to ask for access to every website anywhere on the Internet, so please narrow your http and https permission request."
> they're too busy to explain to everyone what they're doing wrong
If a human flagged this, how much longer would it have taken to add the sentence above to the email? Or even write that instead of the useless generic boilerplate that's in the email?
If, OTOH, an automated bot flagged this (which is what I suspect, and what others seem to suspect too), why didn't whoever wrote the automated bot put at least some kind of clue in the script that writes the email? Something like "if bad thing #6 is found, add text XYZ to the email".