[theme-reviewers] My First Suggest-Approval *sniff*

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Sun Sep 12 22:51:13 UTC 2010

I cannot agree more with Chip on these points, especially in cases where the
"new" function replacing the "deprecated" function is simply a find and
replace process then what is the issue with making it a requirement to use
the current correct function?

I would be willing to accept a short time line of one or two major releases
with __specific__ exceptions noted explicitly by the __core__ devs otherwise
a 30 day grace period from the release date of the current version is fair
(provided the queue does not exceed that same period).


On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Nacin <wp at andrewnacin.com> wrote
>> On the other hand, if the theme uses clean_url() instead of esc_url() (as
>> but one example), please don't reject that theme. I'm just glad they're
>> sanitizing their outputs.
>> If someone from the core team or Automattic want to volunteer to maintain
> the allowable deprecated function call list from release to release, and
> keep the Theme Review Guidelines updated accordingly (i.e. listing every
> allowable deprecated function), then perhaps we can consider revising the
> current guideline.
> Otherwise, I'm not going to commit to reviewing each deprecated function
> call ad hoc, and assess whether or not its allowable. That's just not
> efficient or effective use of Theme reviewers' time.
> Chip
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100912/eff15533/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list