[wp-hackers] Plugin zip problem on wordpress.org

Travis Snoozy ai2097 at users.sourceforge.net
Mon Oct 22 07:48:13 GMT 2007

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:21:01 -0700, "Jared Bangs" <jared at pacific22.com>

> On 10/16/07, Callum Macdonald
> <lists.automattic.com at callum-macdonald.com> wrote:
> >
> > Did anything ever come of this suggestion? I don't remember seeing
> > any opposition to it and I saw several people supporting it.
> >
> > Is there a process which needs to be followed to get this done or
> > do we just need to pester Matt?
> I think the general consensus might be that it works fine as is.

Based on...? I've seen only one person settle on "leave it be." It's
not exactly easy to tell the difference between "vocal minority" and
"silent consensus." ;)

> If that's not the case, then I'd say (as you suggest) that the first
> step is determining if this part of code is open for discussion, and
> if so, what that process should be.

Indeed. Who's the maintainer? It's not exactly listed anywhere; I
assume from skimming some trac tickets that we have to go through Matt
or Mike.

> If we are considering possible changes, I'd throw in the suggestion
> for allowing (or actually requiring) the readme screenshot images to
> be named references to files, rather than files named according to
> the current convention.
> Then you could allow these file references to have an attribute
> indicating whether the packager should include it in the zip of not.

Yeah, but my coder's intuition tells me that's getting into a bigger,
more complex change in code, and it also solves a narrower issue.
Indicating a subdirectory provides a lot more leverage over package
contents for the effort. I totally agree that screenshots should be
allowed to have real names (the way it is now is totally lame), but the
inclusion issue can be solved independently, so we don't need to tie
the two solutions together.


In Series maintainer
Random coder & quality guy

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list