[wp-hackers] Plugin zip problem on wordpress.org
viper at viper007bond.com
Mon Oct 22 07:51:52 GMT 2007
I think most people are probably just fine with how it is, but not opposed
to the previously suggested suggestion (but not really in favor of it
either). Or at least that's how I feel.
On 10/22/07, Travis Snoozy <ai2097 at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:21:01 -0700, "Jared Bangs" <jared at pacific22.com>
> > On 10/16/07, Callum Macdonald
> > <lists.automattic.com at callum-macdonald.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did anything ever come of this suggestion? I don't remember seeing
> > > any opposition to it and I saw several people supporting it.
> > >
> > > Is there a process which needs to be followed to get this done or
> > > do we just need to pester Matt?
> > I think the general consensus might be that it works fine as is.
> Based on...? I've seen only one person settle on "leave it be." It's
> not exactly easy to tell the difference between "vocal minority" and
> "silent consensus." ;)
> > If that's not the case, then I'd say (as you suggest) that the first
> > step is determining if this part of code is open for discussion, and
> > if so, what that process should be.
> Indeed. Who's the maintainer? It's not exactly listed anywhere; I
> assume from skimming some trac tickets that we have to go through Matt
> or Mike.
> > If we are considering possible changes, I'd throw in the suggestion
> > for allowing (or actually requiring) the readme screenshot images to
> > be named references to files, rather than files named according to
> > the current convention.
> > Then you could allow these file references to have an attribute
> > indicating whether the packager should include it in the zip of not.
> Yeah, but my coder's intuition tells me that's getting into a bigger,
> more complex change in code, and it also solves a narrower issue.
> Indicating a subdirectory provides a lot more leverage over package
> contents for the effort. I totally agree that screenshots should be
> allowed to have real names (the way it is now is totally lame), but the
> inclusion issue can be solved independently, so we don't need to tie
> the two solutions together.
> In Series maintainer
> Random coder & quality guy
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
Viper007Bond | http://www.viper007bond.com/
More information about the wp-hackers