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

Thu Sep 19 00:26:41 UTC 2013

@chip In my case I am only de-registering/registering if ! is_admin and if
the use masonry option is selected. Hard to see why someone would use a
plugin using masonry and my theme and not disable that option.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130918/95220a25/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20130918/95220a25/attachment-0004.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/20130918/95220a25/attachment-0005.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/20130918/95220a25/attachment-0006.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/20130918/95220a25/attachment-0007.jpg>