[theme-reviewers] Upgrading Masonry In Core

[Edward Caissie]

A few more thoughts ...

It's not that Theme Review Admins words carry any weight, I agree with Chip
that what we have to say does not have any real affect on how core and its
devs work ... commenting on the ticket could very well be read by blind
eyes.

What I do find really interesting is how these same developers and
contributors want to protect the themes being developed by Automattic /
WordPress / et al. from having to keep "current" while we find it to simply
be "best practice" as WordPress Theme Review Team admins to continually ask
theme authors keep their code current, especially staying up-to-date with
the latest release of WordPress core.

Updating Masonry, like any other bundled script should be a matter of
course, not whether or not it breaks a bundled theme. The theme should be
held to its own benchmarks, and to find a method of updating that will meet
the latest core scripts, much like they are expected to not use deprecated
functions or any other similar guideline.

Edward Caissie
aka Cais.


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> There are more than theme developers that would be affected by updating
> Masonry in core ... plugin developers would also appreciate being able to
> use a current version.
>
>
> Edward Caissie
> aka Cais.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> That makes sense.
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 23, 2013, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt my word would carry any more weight.
>>>
>>> Instead, get the Theme developers who are actually *using* Masonry, who
>>> would be impacted by (i.e. benefit from) the change to comment in the
>>> ticket, confirming their desire and intent to use Masonry 3.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> @chip, yep the issue is a outdated core bundled version of core, with a
>>> new version that is not backwards compatible.  As far as I can tell the
>>> only things that are broken by the upgrade in core by a Masonry 3 are the
>>> footer widgets in core bundled themes.
>>> Nacin, and I think Helen as well, consider that a show-stopper. If you
>>> disagree with them on this, could you please say so in the ticket? I know
>>> lead developer trumps theme review admin, but theme review team admin
>>> should carry more weight then random guys (ie me and Rohit.) Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>
>>> And here's the rub: Theme developers have been wanting/trying to use the
>>> latest version of Masonry, and we have been requiring them to use the
>>> core-bundled version. (See previous mail-list discussions regarding
>>> Masonry.)
>>>
>>> I say: provide a reasonable timeframe, and make the change. The problem
>>> (apparently - I'm also not a jQuery person) is that WordPress core bundles
>>> an outdated version of Masonry. We shouldn't compound that issue by forcing
>>> it to remain in core. If a bridge script can be written, all the better.
>>> But it shouldn't be a showstopper for getting Masonry 3 into core.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Would anyone's theme experience a similar issue? Probably. Is that a
>>> valid objection to upgrading in core?
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably.
>>>
>>> Is what nacin suggested about writing a back-compat wrapper possible?
>>> I'm not a javascript guru and I have no idea what the changes in masonry
>>> are. But if an add-on of some type can be made to fix compatibility breaks,
>>> then it's more likely to get in.
>>>
>>> The short end of it is that if at all possible, core upgrades cannot
>>> break people's websites. If somebody is using Masonry 2 and upgrading core
>>> to Masonry 3 will break that site, then Masonry 3 just ain't gonna go in.
>>> But if a "masonry-fix" script can be added to prevent that breakage, well,
>>> that will go over much better.
>>>
>>> -Otto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>  <http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20131123/cce0f495/attachment-0001.html>