[theme-reviewers] Guidance on theme security

[Chip Bennett]

Interestingly, the stats indicate:

3.0: 49.1%
2.9: 27.3%
2.8: 10.6%

So, basically:

3.0: 50%
2.9+: 76%
2.8+: 87%

That probably gives us a pretty good indication of where the overall
userbase is.

While I would *prefer* that we say *no* backward-compatibility, it is
*reasonable
*to allow backward-compatibility for up to one major revision, as it would
cover 3/4 of the overall userbase.

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?

Chip

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Marty Martin <m at seoserpent.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/efd4d489/attachment-0001.htm>