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

Wed Sep 18 23:07:32 UTC 2013

I don't think it's an inherently ridiculous requirement. For the record,
(almost) all guidelines can have exceptions granted - but those exceptions
need to be justified. Usually that sort of thing is handled in-ticket, but
I think this one makes for a useful and interesting discussion.

We can assume a couple things:

1) The core-bundled version is kept in core for a reason
2) Plugins will use the core-bundled version

So, any exception to the guideline, if justified and granted, would need to
account for those two assumptions. There is an interesting discussion
taking place in the Trac ticket, that gives some useful background
regarding why v2.x is still bundled with core, as well as the issues that
must be overcome in order to bundle the latest version in core.

Given sound justification, and implemented in a way that ensures that the
custom-registered version of Masonry plays nicely with core and other
Plugins, I would have no problem with allowing an exception, until the
core-bundled version is updated.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e36d4114/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/e36d4114/attachment-0004.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/e36d4114/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- 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/e36d4114/attachment-0006.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/e36d4114/attachment-0007.jpg>