[theme-reviewers] Upgrading Masonry In Core

[Edward Caissie]

There are more than theme developers that would be affected by updating
Masonry in core ... plugin developers would also appreciate being able to
use a current version.


Edward Caissie
aka Cais.


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes sense.
>
>
> On Saturday, November 23, 2013, Chip Bennett wrote:
>
>> I doubt my word would carry any more weight.
>>
>> Instead, get the Theme developers who are actually *using* Masonry, who
>> would be impacted by (i.e. benefit from) the change to comment in the
>> ticket, confirming their desire and intent to use Masonry 3.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> @chip, yep the issue is a outdated core bundled version of core, with a
>> new version that is not backwards compatible.  As far as I can tell the
>> only things that are broken by the upgrade in core by a Masonry 3 are the
>> footer widgets in core bundled themes.
>> Nacin, and I think Helen as well, consider that a show-stopper. If you
>> disagree with them on this, could you please say so in the ticket? I know
>> lead developer trumps theme review admin, but theme review team admin
>> should carry more weight then random guys (ie me and Rohit.) Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>> And here's the rub: Theme developers have been wanting/trying to use the
>> latest version of Masonry, and we have been requiring them to use the
>> core-bundled version. (See previous mail-list discussions regarding
>> Masonry.)
>>
>> I say: provide a reasonable timeframe, and make the change. The problem
>> (apparently - I'm also not a jQuery person) is that WordPress core bundles
>> an outdated version of Masonry. We shouldn't compound that issue by forcing
>> it to remain in core. If a bridge script can be written, all the better.
>> But it shouldn't be a showstopper for getting Masonry 3 into core.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Would anyone's theme experience a similar issue? Probably. Is that a
>> valid objection to upgrading in core?
>>
>>
>> Probably.
>>
>> Is what nacin suggested about writing a back-compat wrapper possible? I'm
>> not a javascript guru and I have no idea what the changes in masonry are.
>> But if an add-on of some type can be made to fix compatibility breaks, then
>> it's more likely to get in.
>>
>> The short end of it is that if at all possible, core upgrades cannot
>> break people's websites. If somebody is using Masonry 2 and upgrading core
>> to Masonry 3 will break that site, then Masonry 3 just ain't gonna go in.
>> But if a "masonry-fix" script can be added to prevent that breakage, well,
>> that will go over much better.
>>
>> -Otto
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131123/efd362e5/attachment.html>