[theme-reviewers] Is it necessary to use Core Bundled Masonry?

[Josh Pollock]

This is a ridiculous requirement.

So let's imagine a scenario where a reviewer noticed that my theme
deregistered core-bundled Masonry 4 versions or so ago in order to use
Masonry 3. That reviewer would have said "Josh you are required to use the
version of Masonry that is bundled with WordPress." To which I would have
said, "but you see, the version of Masonry in WordPress is very old. The
very different new version, allows me to solve all of the weird formatting
problems I was getting when using Masonry in my theme." And the reviewer
would have reminded me that our guidelines do not have sensible flexibility
built-in to allow for the rules to be bent a bit when it solves real world
problems. Instead, I'd have been given the choice of removing a feature or
allowing my theme to remain broken for an indefinite period of time.

Wouldn't it have been better if the hypothetical reviewer had allowed this
rule bending, in the name of making things work, that would have had little
to no adverse consequences as long as I agreed to switch to core-bundled
Masonry when it was updated to Masonry 3?

See how that second scenario produces better themes, which I think is the
point of the theme review guidelines to begin with.

Of course, my theme works nicely with Masonry, because no one noticed that
I acted sensibly instead instead of following the guidelines to the letter,
which would have produced an inferior theme.




On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com> wrote:

> Great. I am submitting a trac ticket with patch.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:10:37 -0500
> From: dane at danemorganmedia.com
>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Is it necessary to use Core Bundled Masonry?
>
> Chip, do you have a good resource for me to start learning how to go about
> doing that?
>
>   Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:06
> You should submit a Trac ticket (with patch, if possible) to have the
> core-bundled version updated.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>   Towfiq I. <tislam100 at gmail.com>
>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:04
> +1 for the making this allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Towfiq I.
>  _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>   Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com>
>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:01
>  Here is the latest version:
> http://masonry.desandro.com/masonry.pkgd.min.js
> and here is the one which wordpress uses: http://pastebin.com/HtbGdtdK
>
> These are two really different scripts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>   Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com>
>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:58
>  The core jquery-masonry(v2.1) is practically useless, it has 1/3rd the
> amount of code present in the version 3.1.2. I will be handicapped, if I am
> forced to use the MUCH older version, as I am not able to do what I want
> with it.
>
> It's a request to allow usage of the latest version, as both are really
> different.
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>   Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
>  Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:54
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes it's requirement to use core bundled scripts.
>
> Emil
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130918/e9217fba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/e9217fba/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1200 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/e9217fba/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/e9217fba/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/e9217fba/attachment-0003.jpg>