[theme-reviewers] Guidance on theme security

[Marty Martin]

Wait, other people use WordPress?  :P

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.

I will join you in between this rock and hard place.  :D

M

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Chip
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Marty Martin <m at seoserpent.com> wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>> My $0.02.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should indicate an allowable age of backward-compatibility
>>> support? What's the right answer here?
>>>
>>> 1) Themes must support current major WP version only (e.g. 3.0, not
>>> 2.9.x)
>>> 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)
>>> 3) Themes may provide backward-compatibility as old as the Developer
>>> wishes to support
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The question is: how far back?
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Gene Robinson <emhr at submersible.me>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quick draft item has been added to the Theme Review ...
>>>>
>>>> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Site_Information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> @Nacin -  When you review Simply Works Core 1.3.3<http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1596> ,
>>>> I'd appreciate your going-over my <http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1566>previous
>>>> review's suggestions <http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/1566>.
>>>>
>>>> -Gene (emhr)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20101020/2afd244a/attachment.htm>