If the extension is in a queue for that long it usually means that we’re not yet decided on some rule that is important in accepting/rejecting the extension (but there can be other reasons, like discussion taking place somewhere else or something like that). Those decisions take time unfortunately, but we want to be sure we’re not gonna accept something that we’ll have to unlist in the future.
In general, for extensions that are not in that blurry area review shouldn’t take more than couple of days.
I am regularly checking what kind of extensions need to be approved and what is going on with the ones that are taking longer. The usual time it takes to approve them is surprisingly fast. We are talking about days. (Thanks to @nickberckley for doing a lot of work (if not most?) in that regard!)
For those tools, I suspect there are good reasons why they aren’t approved yet.
The AI tool is problematic, because the assets in Extensions need to be public domain or CC0. Is this the case for generated models too?!
The other I assume is problematic because it is from Blenderbob and using the name Blender is not allowed for Extension names (Terms of Service — Blender Extensions).
I really like the way things are handled at this point. Not rushing special cases and taking the time to figure out what good guidelines are in the long run feels like the correct approach to me.
As a first-time contributor, I still have some questions, hope this is the right place to ask them:
Is there a how-to guide that explains the review process?
For example, in the comment section I see both a “Comment” field and an “Await Review” field. My extension is currently in the “Await Changes” state, and I’m unsure which option I should choose after making the requested updates.
I’m supporting multiple platforms by using blender --command extension build --split-platforms. Can there be a field to upload all the .zip files for each platform at once?
Currently, after uploading, I clicked “upload new version” for the other platforms, and uploaded them one by one. Would be amazing if this could be done in one step.
You should choose Awaiting Review when you’ve made requested changes and want moderators to have new look. Otherwise comment. We should probably expose two buttons to avoid confusion there.
Regarding comments: Could the comment section get exposed on the addons page as well? Or a contact button/field sending a mail notification.
The reason i’m asking this:
Reviews can’t be changed. But sometimes user complain about bugs and leave a one star. It gets fixed, the review stays.
Some creators don’t supply an actual bugtracker but rather link their socials. This is fine by me for most cases as preferences are different, but e.g. for X (former Twitter) you can only DM people when verified (monthly cost) or they follow you (unlikely).
Currently you can “cheat the system” by just changing the url to approval queue:
https://extensions.blender.org/add-ons/<addon_name>/
https://extensions.blender.org/approval-queue/<addon_name>/#activity
A point that might speak against it, is using the comments as the bugtracker instead of the linked one. I experienced this before with the extension i maintain, but even then acces for me as a creator to the comments section is easier if accessible through the addons page.
You can flag those reviews. Reviews aren’t place for bug tracker. And no matter how many places we expose for reporting bugs some users will still do that.
We discourage that. If you find cases of that report the extension to moderators.
Alright, flagged one by another user for another dev (who for reference did supply X until recently).
We discourage that. If you find cases of that report the extension to moderators.
A bit of clarification here would be great. Are socials prohibited all times, or do platforms exist that would be tolerated (e.g. blenderartists, discord, etc.)? What about sites of marketplaces (e.g. gumroad, blender market)?
Anywho, would still like the comment section to get exposed clearer.
We allow Blenderartists and discord servers, but not direct messages. Bug tracker should be public. Using git issues page is always recommended because its public but also organized so users can see if bug was already reported.
Marketplaces are allowed in description, but not as bug tracker.
Is it allowed to put an extension on the blender extensions website with a link in the description to blendermarket.com or gumroad or something where you can buy the “pro” version?
It would be beneficial if the search function could also include add-ons in the approval queue, considering there are hundreds of them there.
The descriptions of add-ons in the addon panels are very brief. It would be more helpful if longer, detailed descriptions were encouraged for publishing. Often, I’m unsure about what an add-on actually does based on the current descriptions.
There are roughly 150 in the approval queue (12 need to be reviewed, the others require changes).
I don’t think they should appear in the search to be honest. There is a reason why they are not ready (yet). Maybe an option for people who want to review them, which might be unlocked like “Developer Extras”.
I also encountered quite a few descriptions that weren’t as useful as they should be.
That’s a fair point. However, it could also facilitate developer collaboration. For example, I came across a few projects where I might like to contribute.
Extensions platform is simply hosting website for extensions, it isn’t meant to be communication or development platform. If you’d like to collaborate with developers you should contact them on their listed websites.
