[theme-reviewers] Guidance on theme security

Wed Oct 20 14:27:15 UTC 2010

I'm fine with themes being backward-compatible, I am just balking at us
(read: *me*) having to check it.  ;)

Marty

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/af961eda/attachment.htm>