[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
Chip Bennett
chip at chipbennett.net
Thu Aug 23 14:23:48 UTC 2012
I've updated the guidelines as follows:
- Themes *must not* support backward compatibility for more than two
major WordPress versions (currently, that means versions prior to WordPress
3.2)
- Themes *should not* support backward compatibility for more than one
major WordPress version (currently, that means versions prior to WordPress
3.3)
Hopefully that eliminates any and all ambiguity.
Thanks!
Chip
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Drew Clardy <dclardy64 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I might be a little crazy here, but I read that completely as Chip is
> stating it. You must not support more than two major versions back. That is
> currently 3.2. He states that pretty clearly. If there is any confusion,
> you could change it like this.
>
> Themes must not support backward compatibility for more than two major
> WordPress versions (currently versions less than WordPress 3.2)
>
> I think that clears it up pretty easily, and I don't think that can be
> taken any other way.
>
> Drew Clardy
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, <
> theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org> wrote:
>
>> Send theme-reviewers mailing list submissions to
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> theme-reviewers-owner at lists.wordpress.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of theme-reviewers digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: unable to upload please advice (Chip Bennett)
>> 2. Re: unable to upload please advice (Otto)
>> 3. Re: unable to upload please advice (Chip Bennett)
>> 4. Re: unable to upload please advice (Fong Li Heng)
>> 5. Re: unable to upload please advice (Otto)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:43:53 -0500
>> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAPdLKqfH_CDJ-v=
>> d0PchuROvzm7v-EXvJfiGxmOCepjKiFipag at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>>
>> That is stating the allowed version to which backward compatibility is
>> allowed; it clearly indicates what "two prior versions" means.
>>
>> It doesn't make any sense for version 3.4 to be "one prior version to
>> version 3.4"; thus, it makes no sense for version 3.3 to be "two prior
>> versions to 3.4".
>>
>> Is it seriously unclear? How would you prefer for it to be stated?
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > In fact, the current guidelines even explicitly indicate the versions
>> for
>> > > which backward compatibility is allowed:
>> >
>> > Yes, they do. Exactly. And did you *read* those versions?
>> >
>> > > Themes must not support backward compatibility for more than two major
>> > > WordPress versions (currently: WordPress 3.2)
>> >
>> > MUST NOT SUPPORT 3.2. It says it right there, black and white.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how it could be any more clear than that, indeed.
>> >
>> > -Otto
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20120823/58e0a1f9/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:50:26 -0500
>> From: Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> CAD-FghxUxhc2S1e-V1Wp8qTTLX3gaxWDD53VtQGr4O8JGO4RGw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>> > That is stating the allowed version to which backward compatibility is
>> > allowed; it clearly indicates what "two prior versions" means.
>>
>> It has the phrase "must not support" and a version in it, but you're
>> telling me that the version given is actually allowed to be supported.
>>
>> How is that in any way clear, at all?
>>
>> I don't know how you should fix it, because apparently I have no idea
>> what the guideline actually is.. As I read that, right now, even with
>> your explanation, then I'm reading that theme authors must not support
>> WordPress 3.2 or earlier. I don't see how anybody could read that
>> guideline any differently. It's perfectly clear as it is now: No
>> supporting 3.2 or earlier.
>>
>> If you want to change it to make WordPress 3.2 capable of being
>> supported, which that guideline explicitly says it cannot be, then you
>> should change it to say that WordPress 3.2 *is* capable of being
>> supported. How you do that, I have no idea. I would suggest changing
>> it to not say what it currently says, but what you change it to
>> depends on what you think it is supposed to say. Which, again, I have
>> no idea how you could read it any differently from the way I'm reading
>> it right now.
>>
>> -Otto
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:01:27 -0500
>> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAPdLKqeCrh_B_u0=
>> DnrhbfVSjpz_TiKOGr9aUCMQ8jybMRAmzA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>>
>> Okay, this is pretty straight-forward.
>>
>> The current version is 3.4
>> One version prior to current is 3.3
>> Two versions prior to current is 3.2
>> *More than* one version prior to current is 3.2
>> *More than* two versions prior to current is 3.1.
>>
>> The guideline states: "Themes *must not* support backward compatibility
>> *for
>> more than two major WordPress versions* (currently: WordPress 3.2)"
>>
>>
>> There is no possible, logical way that you can conclude that version 3.2
>> is
>> MORE THAN TWO versions prior to the current version, which is 3.4.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > That is stating the allowed version to which backward compatibility is
>> > > allowed; it clearly indicates what "two prior versions" means.
>> >
>> > It has the phrase "must not support" and a version in it, but you're
>> > telling me that the version given is actually allowed to be supported.
>> >
>> > How is that in any way clear, at all?
>> >
>> > I don't know how you should fix it, because apparently I have no idea
>> > what the guideline actually is.. As I read that, right now, even with
>> > your explanation, then I'm reading that theme authors must not support
>> > WordPress 3.2 or earlier. I don't see how anybody could read that
>> > guideline any differently. It's perfectly clear as it is now: No
>> > supporting 3.2 or earlier.
>> >
>> > If you want to change it to make WordPress 3.2 capable of being
>> > supported, which that guideline explicitly says it cannot be, then you
>> > should change it to say that WordPress 3.2 *is* capable of being
>> > supported. How you do that, I have no idea. I would suggest changing
>> > it to not say what it currently says, but what you change it to
>> > depends on what you think it is supposed to say. Which, again, I have
>> > no idea how you could read it any differently from the way I'm reading
>> > it right now.
>> >
>> > -Otto
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20120823/77f69e3d/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:01:32 +0800
>> From: Fong Li Heng <fonglh at gmail.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> CACCsp-svCrdeM4hf4_3aX6Ek-mpCuoDyw9VHv9OUQzE-Jb4YBw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>>
>> The 'more than' is important. Versions 'more than' (older than) the stated
>> one must not be supported. So the stated version is actually allowed as
>> the
>> phrasing means 'older than' as compared to 'older than or equal to'.
>>
>> That's how I interpret it anyway.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > That is stating the allowed version to which backward compatibility is
>> > > allowed; it clearly indicates what "two prior versions" means.
>> >
>> > It has the phrase "must not support" and a version in it, but you're
>> > telling me that the version given is actually allowed to be supported.
>> >
>> > How is that in any way clear, at all?
>> >
>> > I don't know how you should fix it, because apparently I have no idea
>> > what the guideline actually is.. As I read that, right now, even with
>> > your explanation, then I'm reading that theme authors must not support
>> > WordPress 3.2 or earlier. I don't see how anybody could read that
>> > guideline any differently. It's perfectly clear as it is now: No
>> > supporting 3.2 or earlier.
>> >
>> > If you want to change it to make WordPress 3.2 capable of being
>> > supported, which that guideline explicitly says it cannot be, then you
>> > should change it to say that WordPress 3.2 *is* capable of being
>> > supported. How you do that, I have no idea. I would suggest changing
>> > it to not say what it currently says, but what you change it to
>> > depends on what you think it is supposed to say. Which, again, I have
>> > no idea how you could read it any differently from the way I'm reading
>> > it right now.
>> >
>> > -Otto
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20120823/d49f23fa/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:08:09 -0500
>> From: Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> CAD-Fghw6c_b8G0ASnHWBN8OxiypqpYKzc-ZDXU6Fccd_b89vTQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Okay, this is pretty straight-forward.
>>
>> Yes, actually, it is.
>>
>> Change the wording of that guideline.
>>
>> It's that simple. I'm not changing a darned thing until that guideline
>> is changed to be more clear than it is right now. You can use all the
>> logic you want, and try to explain it over and over, and I can even
>> understand your explanations and that isn't the problem.
>>
>> The problem is that the guideline, as written, is totally unclear.
>>
>> Right now, theme check and the uploader say that 3.2 is not allowed
>> because that was (and *still is*) my interpretation of that text in
>> the guidelines.
>>
>> I'm not going to change that until you fix the text of that guideline
>> to be clear and explicit about what is allowed.
>>
>> If I can misinterpret it, then so can others, and apparently I've been
>> misinterpreting it for almost *2 years*. Seriously, you just turned
>> the world upside down on me here, because I've been operating with a
>> "2 versions of support" notion in my head ever since theme-check was
>> created, and now you're telling me that we actually allow THREE
>> versions of support.
>>
>> I don't care how you change that text, but it must change. Everything
>> happening with theme-check *stops* until you do.
>>
>> -Otto
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>> End of theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 27, Issue 90
>> ***********************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120823/1f2583fe/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list