[theme-reviewers] Guidance on theme security

Wed Oct 20 14:27:48 UTC 2010

Forgot to add, maybe tabling this for the next release would be a good idea
and at that point, maybe 3.0 adoption will be higher.

M

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Marty Martin <m at seoserpent.com> wrote:

> 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/cc0a06fd/attachment-0001.htm>