TLDR -- I am curious but patient as to mods getting updated for v0.17 but am curious as to common practice within the modding ecosystem / marketplace.

Many of the major mods were updated for v0.17.x on day0, which was nice, but some are lagging.

Modding is an unpaid / volunteer affair, and I'm sensitive to respecting the "hobbyism" that it represents, so I work to avoid getting snippy or demanding from mod authors. Against this, some mods are more difficult to update than others (I'm looking at you, AngelBobClownDyPyYuoki-masochist factorians!)

Separately, the mod portal was streamlined and nicely polished for the new game update, which I'm enjoying. Best new feature in the mod portal so far is a directly clickable hyperlink within the Factorio base game client to open a browser tab to the "Factorio version" metadata flag if valid link was provided by original mod-uploader. Some mods don't have this metadata provided, which is to be expected as modders transition to the new scheme.

Some questions:

1.) Some mods seem, to my untrained non-programmer eye, like they're pretty lightweight from a backend perspective (e.g. Angel's Warehouses) where it's correctly* listed as incompatible with Factorio v0.17. Can anyone provide some pointers if there's a simple idiot-resistant fix that an end user like me could do to perform a rough-and-dirty "patch" to make a mod at least partially playable while I wait for the proper author to get their own chance to update the mod properly? (* "Correctly" as in, yup, trying to load a savefile anyway results in broken builds as concerning the mod in question. In other words, it's not simply a false-positive from metadata flag typology, the mod is user-verifiable as not yet compatible.)

2.) Some mod's metadata links point to a forums.factorio.com post, which to my mind would seem ideal. Some provide links to the mods.factorio.com page. As a general question, why WOULDN'T a modder choose to use the forums instead of the mods.* domain for their primary interactivity hub with users? I.e., is there a modder-side benefit that I don't see as an end-user?

3.) I'm much more familiar with mod-end-user etiquette for KSP. Here, what's the generally accepted custom for communicating with a mod-author to verify that they're still actively intending to update a mod and haven't gotten around to it yet, particularly with respect to base-game changes like we see this week? I specifically note that in the KSP context in which I'm more familiar, it's generally acceptable to bump a related forum thread with one or a limited quantity of end-users requesting mod-author verification that they remain active in their efforts to maintain the mod; with frowns upon people who post without searching at least the last few pages of the thread to verify their question is not yet asked by another, and a common understanding that once a mod author chimes in with "Yes I'm here and aware of the issue" it's very rare for it to be acceptable to demand or even imply a demand for an estimate on when an update would be ready. In other words, they're unpaid hobbyist volunteers, and if a base-game update happens to break their mod at the same time that their irl workplace is entering a busy season, the unpaid mod efforts will go unaddressed either for a while or conceivably forever (in which circumstance it becomes acceptable to discuss licensing for another curator who might adopt said orphaned mod.)

4.) More generally, I tend to think that r/Factorio is a watering hole for discussion and meta-discussion, showcasing builds, and other redditry; the Facebook group / groups is for memery and screenshot hijinks; and the forums are the best place for technical discussions about modding and appurtenances thereto. In this mentality, the mods.factorio.com pages are for filehosting specifically and might not be well suited to the discussions that I mentally assign to forum discussions. Am I wildly off base for thinking of them with those distinctions?

Other thoughts are welcome here.