Absent pre-existing guidelines, I would list your findings as *recommended* only. It is always good to promote and to educate regarding best practices, but we should only ever *not-approve* (even if "required fix in next revision") those criteria that are stated in the guidelines.<div>
<br></div><div>(That said: feel free to propose guidelines revisions wrt pluggable vs. filterable functions!)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Kirk Wight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca" target="_blank">kwight@kwight.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Howdy,<div><br></div><div>I'm reviewing a theme that has made all functions in functions.php pluggable, including those on hooks. From what I understand, this won't break anything, but doesn't feel very "best practice"-y (anything on a hook can just be removed from the hook, making the pluggable code un-necessary).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The theme was already approved, but I prefer to encourage the best practice; perhaps a "fix in next release" note is appropriate, rather than blocking approval?..</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">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>