[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?

[Trent Lapinski]

Emil, we are not going to bloat our code with backwards compatibility.

We shouldn’t be forced by the TRT to have to go back, and reinvent our entire product to meet some absurd guideline.

I appreciate the suggestion, but we’ve been trying to get this theme out for months and we’ve spent months debating solutions and there aren’t any. The most logical solution is to release the new version under its own name while still maintaining its branding.

--Trent Lapinski
=============
CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
http://CyberChimps.com
Twitter @trentlapinski
Skype: mobiletrent

On Sep 26, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> Have you seen my link I posted above? http://www.studiopress.com/news/updating-genesis-2-0.htm 
> 
> Genesis did exactly the same thing and upgraded millions to HTML5, so it is possible and they did not use two completely different themes.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com> wrote:
>> If a different version of a theme will break this many websites, it's
>> not the same theme. Point blank. Rename it and build the second brand
>> the same way that you build the first brand.
> 
> We upgraded the grid to be mobile first, and upgraded to HTML5 there’s no way to go backwards. 
> 
> This is the nature of technology. The repo doesn’t allow us to not force update notices, or allow users to easily revert back to previous versions so naming convention is about the only thing we can do to protect the cycle of innovation.
> 
> We shouldn’t be forced to abandon our brand because of a draconian policy that clearly stifles innovation.
> 
>> Let's be clear here: the word "Responsive" is incredibly valuable to
>> your business. It's not valuable to the admins of the theme
>> repository, and if they allow Responsive II to be added into the
>> repository, I will absolutely release a free theme titled Responsive
>> III or Responsive IV into the repository.
> 
> Once again the slippery slope fallacy. I’ve repeatedly stated that all I am purposing is that established brands be able to use their brands for multiple products. I am not stating we should allow people to use other peoples brands.
> 
>> Your business has nothing to do with the repository, to be frank.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> It's
>> your job to figure out how to work within the guidelines of the repo,
>> not the other way around.
> 
> 
> I disagree. When the repo starts making business decisions on behalf my company then I absolutely will challenge the guidelines.
> 
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
> http://CyberChimps.com
> Mobile (714) 904-4280
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> Skype: mobiletrent
> 
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Philip Arthur Moore <philip at pressbuild.com> wrote:
> 
>>> I just need someway to communicate that this is the new version of the Responsive theme without breaking millions of websites.
>> 
>> If a different version of a theme will break this many websites, it's
>> not the same theme. Point blank. Rename it and build the second brand
>> the same way that you build the first brand.
>> 
>> Let's be clear here: the word "Responsive" is incredibly valuable to
>> your business. It's not valuable to the admins of the theme
>> repository, and if they allow Responsive II to be added into the
>> repository, I will absolutely release a free theme titled Responsive
>> III or Responsive IV into the repository.
>> 
>> Your business has nothing to do with the repository, to be frank. It's
>> your job to figure out how to work within the guidelines of the repo,
>> not the other way around.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140926/8cabed6d/attachment.html>