[theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.

Wed Jun 26 05:43:00 UTC 2013

here* is the thing, not hear, sorry my phone is acting weird!

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> So hear is the thing. With the blessings of others, I am thinking that
> Themes should not be "crucified" the way we're doing this now. As
> I was previously expressing, not all things are the "plugin territory".
>
> My personal methodology is, if nothing breaks, or interferes with the
> core and it's useful to users, let it be, as simple as that.
>
> Restricting and eliminating rather harmful stuff, will project very
> negatively to Theme authors.
>
> I don't want to step on anyone's toe here and this is what I believe
> is right, or at least it should be :)
>
> Emil
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>
>> i.e. don't even give it a second glance, that's a feature of the theme
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:35 PM
>>
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>
>> There's no question about it, as long as it passes the theme unit test
>> with
>> default settings it would pass right?
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Daniel
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:31 PM
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>
>> What about themes like my one where you can remove the header and
>> footer because your using a bridge like wp-united? Where do those sort
>> of things come into play?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>> <philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>
>>> These are features of a theme, the shortcodes and more are 'features' of
>>> the
>>> theme.
>>>
>>> If they use the theme and use those shortcodes, then that is the theme
>>> that
>>> is using it, to require shortcodes to be cross compatible and in a
>>> plugin is
>>> simply ridiculous.
>>>
>>> The end user, while picking a theme will choose a theme that has features
>>> that they want.   When they choose another theme that doesn't have those
>>> previous themes features they miss out, it's not a question of requiring
>>> a
>>> compatibility.
>>>
>>> This also goes with themes that have specialty programming in the way of
>>> custom post types and the like. - again the data is not lost, it's still
>>> there, just switching to a different theme will not grant access to it.
>>>
>>> The age of feature rich themes and innovation should be promoted not
>>> stifled.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Harish
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:24 PM
>>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good suggestions by Philip (Frumph) however I have to disagree with:
>>>
>>> " the idea that a theme must adhere and be cross compatible with other
>>> themes in features is a nuance that is unnecessary to worry about."
>>>
>>> Themes do not have to be cross compatible with other themes, but they
>>> should
>>> not be the cause of the end user losing data when changing their themes.
>>>
>>> 2 of the most common issues are shortcodes and custom meta boxes where
>>> the
>>> key  has "_" in front to hide it from the custom meta fields section.
>>>
>>> If theme developers are worried of making things easier for the end user,
>>> most of these things should not have been in the theme in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Harish
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: theme-reviewers [mailto:theme-reviewers-**
>>> bounces at lists.wordpress.org<theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> ]
>>> On Behalf Of Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>>> Sent: Wed 26 June 13 10:41 AM
>>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> Subject: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>>
>>> 1) Remove all requirements and recommendations, change it all to 'best
>>> practices', do not remove anything in the codex just yet.
>>>
>>> 2) Theme review process.
>>> * Theme reviewers tag a theme for review. / It already passed the upload
>>> checker
>>> * Check theme with the other plugin(s)[1] available for development,
>>> check
>>> it for notices, warnings, fatals and deprecation messages, Pass/Fail
>>> * Check theme with theme unit test.  Pass/Fail
>>> * Review the tags, website links, theme name.  Pass/Fail
>>>
>>> It's done, it's reviewed, it's over, if it passed all of those, flag it
>>> as
>>> passing review and live.
>>>
>>> 3) Anything else missing on the above list that is a MUST should be
>>> added to
>>> the list but only if it's a MUST, and can't go live no exception.
>>>
>>> [1] Make the plugins work for the theme review team; add common security
>>> problems, etc.
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> This is it, this is all that is needed.     Everything else is icing on
>>> the
>>> cake for best practices.
>>>
>>>
>>> Themes are the 'meat and potatoes' of WordPress, the idea that a theme
>>> must
>>> adhere and be cross compatible with other themes in features is a nuance
>>> that is unnecessary to worry about.   Plugins are made to enhance themes;
>>> if a plugin doesn't work with a theme the community WILL contact the
>>> author;
>>>
>>> they always do.   As long as the theme is up to date with core coding
>>> which
>>> all of the tools at our disposal make you aware of - of which even the
>>> messages from core will also state things it is unnecessary to do
>>> anything
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> // not sure about
>>> Not sure what Nacin wrote in entirety on the Make site, but having the
>>> themes that are live and pass the upload process and immediately go live
>>> again would be a boon; that basically makes it like the theme developer
>>> has
>>> svn access, without having svn access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130626/e82f83d3/attachment-0001.html>