[theme-reviewers] What is wrong with you people? YourejectedTarski?

[Edward Caissie]

Thanks for taking a closer look at this theme Phil ... and apparently
sorting out (most of) the remaining issues that would still be at hand if
submitted prior to your suggested changes.

I would definitely like to see Tarski updated and live with a current and
compliant to WordPress version 3.0.1 revision in the Theme repository, but
as noted the author apparently had not finished with all of their updates,
yet.


Cais.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
philip at frumph.net> wrote:

> Just an FYI on tarski theme, the github current version 2.7.1 has those
> deprecated and notices fixed as requested.
>
> It appears that the developer just hasn't uploaded the latest version to
> the repository.
>
> Everything else is pretty much 'recommended' more or less anyways.
>
> Although I setup my own github fork of it at
> http://github.com/Frumph/tarski/commits/master modifying it to upgrade it
> to the latest wordpress revision.
>
> That was what, an hour?  Still need to do the comment_form() stuff but
> thats about it to make it up to date with theme review/code standards of
> wordpress 3.0, i'll offer it up to the dev to see if he wants it when i'm
> done.
>
> - Phil
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Demetris Kikizas" <kikizas at gmail.com>
> To: <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] What is wrong with you people?
> YourejectedTarski?
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Edward Caissie
>> <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>
>>> As Chip Bennett wrote: '... the term "reject". It is inaccurate and
>>> needlessly inflammatory. We are not "rejecting" anything. We're simply
>>> pointing out things that need to be fixed before "approving" something."
>>> ...
>>> and this is exactly the case. We have several resolutions that can be
>>> used
>>> and perhaps their wording carries an unwanted connotative meaning but
>>> essentially the "not-accepted" resolution that everyone appears to be
>>> suck
>>> on simply means the theme needs some sort of corrective measures to be
>>> taken
>>> to meet the Theme Review criteria and be approved for the Theme
>>> repository.
>>>
>>>
>> Please, spare me the “inflammatory” speech, and stop playing with
>> words.  This here is a serious matter.
>>
>> And the simple fact of it all is that the submission was turned down,
>> Ben did not resubmit (he obviously has better things to do in his life
>> than indulging the absurd[1] requirements of this team), he then went
>> on to release the new version on the Tarski homepage, and WordPress
>> Extend is still in version 2.6 from March 2010.
>>
>> If you don’t understand what all this means, let me make it clear for you:
>>
>> This team here is driving people away.  In this case, it is driving
>> away one of the jewels of the WordPress coding community.
>>
>> [1] Here is a striking example of an absurd requirement:  That we must
>> use body_class() and post_class() in our themes.  Could this demand be
>> any more absurd?  It could not?  Wrong!  Just direct it to the author
>> of Tarski, who wrote himself the core WordPress functions based on
>> existing implementations in Sandbox and in his own Tarski. :-o
>>
>> Demetris
>> http://op111.net/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100924/75b7433b/attachment.htm>