[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?
tskk79 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 26 22:56:47 UTC 2014
Okay got it :)
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not taking any sides but "Responsive" is already fair game :
> With regards to that specifically, I believe he was thinking more along
> the lines of a theme named something like "XYZ Responsive". or something
> like that. In such a case, the "XYZ" part is the name, the "responsive" is
> just a descriptive feature. Really, it's a spammy keyword technique, and we
> shouldn't allow it... but, whatever, that doesn't bother me that much.
> My concern is more along the lines of "versions are not supposed to be in
> names". We don't allow plugins that do this. You can't make "PluginX 2.0"
> as a plugin name. We get submissions that do this so much that we have a
> form letter response to send back to them.
> If it's an update, then it should actually update the original, not be a
> new one. You update the original "PluginX", not make a new entry for
> "PluginX 2". Calling a theme "Responsive II" or "2" or "Part Deux" or
> whatever you like violates this rather simple and basic principle. This is
> just my opinion, of course.
> "Weaver II" was allowed to do it because he retired Weaver at the same
> time. No conflict, no problem. If a theme was submitted named "AwesomeTheme
> 1.0" and the "1.0" part was actually in the name, I would hope we would
> reject that as well. Version numbers should not be in names.
> And a new entry in the directory should be treated as would any other new
> entry, not as an update to another entry.
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the theme-reviewers