[theme-reviewers] PHP namespace

[Chip Bennett]

Not for Directory-hosted Themes. The Theme Directory is a *hosting*
directory, not a *listing* directory. Anyone who lists a Theme in the
Directory is expected to *update* the Theme in the Directory, not update
from an external server.


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Daniel <danielx386 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, you can run your own wordpress update server:
> http://clark-technet.com/2010/12/wordpress-self-hosted-plugin-update-api
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Ryan Van Etten <ryanve at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My reasons to submit action to WPORG are to:
> >
> > prevent incorrect dashboard updates from a conflicting WPORG theme
> > prevent overall name confusion
> > enable updates via Dashboard -> Updates
> > enable installs via Appearance -> Themes
> >
> > Is there an official way to solve #1 and #2 from outside WPORG? #3 and #4
> > are pure convenience. For me it would mean maintaining SVN in addition to
> > Github.
> >
> > Thanks all for the solid feedback. I tried to clarify all points in
> ticket
> > #12206. Note there is a newer submission. Itemized commits are viewable
> by
> > range like 1.1.7...1.2.11 and relevant issues are here.
> >
> >
> > @ryanve | 646-853-4941 | ryanve.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Nacin <wp at andrewnacin.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The issue of passing anonymous functions to hooks is certainly valid.
> >>> Hooks must reference a valid callback, so that they can be overridden.
> >>>
> >>> Another major concern is that the Theme *requires* a PHP version higher
> >>> than that required by WordPress core.
> >>
> >>
> >> If a theme cannot safely activate on the minimum version of PHP required
> >> by WordPress, then it has no place in the directory.
> >>
> >> In core, I don't think we "sandbox" themes the way we do plugins. If
> this
> >> triggers fatal errors in 5.2, that's a no-no. The only alternative
> would be
> >> for it to switch back to the previous theme if it cannot run in 5.2. It
> >> looks like this theme does do this:
> >> http://themes.svn.wordpress.org/action/1.1.7/functions.php
> >>
> >> The big problem with using PHP closures in a theme is that a child theme
> >> (or a plugin) cannot remove_action() or that add_action( $hook,
> function() {
> >> ... } ) call. (Same goes for remove_filter() and add_filter().) Even
> when
> >> core moves to PHP 5.3, we will not use closures in this way. They just
> >> aren't compatible with our simplistic hook API.
> >>
> >> I don't think that is a reason to reject this theme. But I'm not sure
> such
> >> a developer-oriented theme has much of a place in the generic
> user-oriented
> >> themes directory. I would be interested to see if ryanve (the developer)
> >> ultimately agrees it should stay on GitHub.
> >>
> >> Nacin
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20130525/fe34ccd0/attachment.html>