[wp-hackers] Making it better

Scott Merrill skippy at skippy.net
Thu Apr 21 21:08:31 GMT 2005

inforequest wrote:
> Then when I dig deep into it I find many of the plug-ins step on each
> other, many are known not to be compatible with 1.5, and in my
> research I come across comments from those "in the know" to that
> effect. It can certainly make one feel duped.

Plugins are often born of an itch the plugin author needed to scratch.
WordPress makes it remarkably easy to make plugins that do all sorts of
things.  That, and the core WordPress development process' attention to
only those items that the overwhelming majority of users need, probably
encourages a lot more plugins than are necessarily helpful.

I know that the phpBB team has a rigid process for submitting mods. Each
submission must include a description file which must adhere to a strict
format.  The description file is parsed when you upload it.  If the file
doesn't parse properly, the submission is rejected outright.  Then, a
member of the team (or possibly several members) reviews the code, and
makes a determination as to whether the plugin is safe.  It's a slow
process, and plugins stay in the "pending" queue for a long time.

But, the upshot is that vetted plugins are pretty well guaranteed to
work for end users (as much so as is possible, assuming a default phpBB
installation on the user's end).

I spoke with DrDave about such a vetting process when he launched
wp-plugins.net, but it never went anywhere.  I realize it represents a
massive investment of time and energy for whoever would participate in
this kind of thing, but it might be one way to help filter known good
plugins up to the top for end users.  I'd be willing to help with this

skippy at skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 9CFA4B35
506C F8BB 17AE 8A05 0B49  3544 476A 7DEC 9CFA 4B35

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list