Forgot to add, maybe tabling this for the next release would be a good idea and at that point, maybe 3.0 adoption will be higher.<div><br>M<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Marty Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m@seoserpent.com">m@seoserpent.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I'm fine with themes being backward-compatible, I am just balking at us (read: <i>me</i>) having to check it. ;)<div>
<br></div><div><font color="#888888">Marty</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Interestingly, the stats indicate:<div><br></div><div>3.0: 49.1%</div><div>2.9: 27.3%</div><div>2.8: 10.6%</div><div><br>
</div><div>So, basically:</div><div><br></div><div>3.0: 50%</div><div>2.9+: 76%</div><div>2.8+: 87%</div>
<div><br></div><div>That probably gives us a pretty good indication of where the overall userbase is.</div><div><br></div><div>While I would <i>prefer</i> that we say *no* backward-compatibility, it is <i>reasonable </i>to allow backward-compatibility for up to one major revision, as it would cover 3/4 of the overall userbase.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, this is a strange release cycle, since we basically skipped an entire development cycle. So, maybe we revisit this after 3.1 and then again after 3.2?</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#888888">Chip</font><div>
<div></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Marty Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m@seoserpent.com" target="_blank">m@seoserpent.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Wait, other people use WordPress? :P<div><br></div><div>Yeah, I get what you're saying, but it's kind of like IE6 backward-compatibility. At some point, you've just got to quit offering it. It's a process and security issue that we don't want to encourage. I understand that if I personally want to run Windows 3.11 on my machine, I can, but I'm not going to be able to get the "latest and greatest" software to run on it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I will join you in between this rock and hard place. :D</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>M</div></font><div><div></div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Oh, in principle and in general, I agree. And, the official Theme Repository should not be encouraging users' procrastination in keeping their WP installs up-to-date.<div>
<br></div><div>But, we're also, as a subset of the overall WP install base, much more likely to be early adopters of each new WP version. We do have to keep in mind that 50% of the WP install base is currently using pre-3.0 versions of WP.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Personally, I would like to see Repository-hosted Themes have no backward compatibility prior to the current major version - and I would like to see Extend display "Requires" and "Tested Up To" tags like the ones displayed for Plugins. But, we have to balance our population-subset desires with the realities of the overall population.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chip</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Marty Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m@seoserpent.com" target="_blank">m@seoserpent.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally I don't give a crap if other users aren't upgrading their WP, but upgrades to core happen for many reasons (security is a good one) and there's not much point in releasing a theme for a version of WP you can't (easily) get any more. Plus, I don't want to have to deal with trying to figure out if a theme is compatible with 2.9 when I run 3.0.1 on all of my sites, including my theme checking site. :o)<div>
<br></div><div>My $0.02.</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#888888">Marty</font><div><div></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Perhaps we should indicate an allowable age of backward-compatibility support? What's the right answer here?<div><br>
</div><div>1) Themes must support current major WP version only (e.g. 3.0, not 2.9.x)</div><div>2) Themes may support a certain number of previous major WP versions (e.g. for 3.0, Themes may provide backward-compatibility for 2.9.x, or 2.8.x)</div>
<div>3) Themes may provide backward-compatibility as old as the Developer wishes to support</div><div><br></div><div>I think One might be a bit restrictive, and difficult to enforce (WP 3.0 adoption is at just over 49%, 4 months after release), but certainly easiest on the Review Team. I think Three would be way too difficult to manage, and would end up causing nightmares for the automated checks (Theme Check and the Uploader Script), due to backward-compatibility support for deprecated functions. So, it would seem to me that Two is the most viable option.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The question is: how far back?</div><div><br></div><div>Chip</div><div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Gene Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:emhr@submersible.me" target="_blank">emhr@submersible.me</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium">A quick draft item has been added to the Theme Review ...<br>
<br><a href="http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Site_Information" target="_blank">http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Site_Information</a></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Looks good. I think it would be a service to theme developers to state that bloginfo('url') is a wrapper for home('url') that provides backward compatibility for versions < 3.0 Although an opposing argument might view this as enabling people to hold out on upgrading WP.<div>
<br></div><div>@Nacin - When you review <a href="http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1596" target="_blank">Simply Works Core 1.3.3</a> , I'd appreciate your going-over my <a href="http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1566" target="_blank"></a>previous review's <a href="http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1566" target="_blank">suggestions</a>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Gene (emhr)<br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>