WordPress.org

Peter Westwood 6:41 am on October 9, 2009 Permalink  

• 

  filosofo 3:09 pm on October 9, 2009 Permalink

  I’m not sure what to call it exactly—”templating” is too strong a term—but the admin needs to abstract more of the way the markup is generated.

  1) Too much stuff is hard-coded
  2) Too much stuff is repeated
  3) Plugin authors shouldn’t have to make common admin form elements by hand
  4) We’re already heading that way somewhat with options registration and media forms

  • 

    Ryan McCue 12:57 pm on October 21, 2009 Permalink

    Agreed, but we should also try and stick away from forcing the user to jump through hoops to use it. I seem to recall Drupal’s form API sucking in this sense.

    • 

      Ryan McCue 1:25 pm on October 21, 2009 Permalink

      Durp, ignore this, missed the date.

• 

  Matt 4:27 pm on October 9, 2009 Permalink

  Meeting Task: #wordpress OPs (if Matt is in attendance)

• 

  Jeff Waugh 6:24 am on October 13, 2009 Permalink

  In the “hopefully simple patches for 2.9″ category: Internal support for conditional scripts (same as existing conditional style support), #10891

• 

  demetris 4:17 pm on October 15, 2009 Permalink

  Some more thoughts from me about WP.org pages…

  1. http://wordpress.org/about/testimonials/

  This should be removed. It’s too old and half of the links are dead. It could be archived somewhere for historical purposes.

  2. http://wordpress.org/hosting/

  This could be improved.

  2a. There is no need to quote all this promotional copy for each company.

  2b. The recommendations could be better. Now wp.org recommends mostly hosts of the over-promising variety (“Unlimited this, unlimited that, etc. etc.”), hosts that for the most part you can find about at any of the many “review” sites on the web. But that’s not the only kind of affordable web-hosting, and maybe WP.org could do a favour to itself and to the people who trust it by considering the other kind as well.

  Two examples from my limited experience and from a bit of research I’ve done, to explain what I’m thinking about:

  WebFaction — http://www.webfaction.com/ — is one of only two companies I know of that offer gzipping and PHP caching on shared-hosting packages. They also use Nginx for static content. (Other than WebFaction and Utopian.net, I know of no other company that sells shared-hosting with either gzipping or PHP caching.) I’ve only seen praise about them (real praise, not from “review” sites) and they are recommended by people I trust. They have a modern setup with all kinds of software and they seem to be a straight-up company. Their cheapest package is $102/year.

  A Small Orange — http://asmallorange.com/ — are often recommended by knowledgeable members of the wp.org forums, especially for their good support. Interestingly, they also offer what must be the cheapest reliable package on the market: $25/year (or just $20 with a discount code, contact me if you are interested) with everything in, even SSH access! Of course, as with any serious provider, the package has limits: 75MB storage and 3GΒ/month traffic. Which will not be appealing to the naive eye, but, to my eyes, is a sign that I have to do an honest, straight-up company.

  Here are the uptime stats for a test site I host with A Small Orange, on the Tiny package, monitored at intervals of 1 minute:

  http://www.pingdom.com/reports/n1gtfjjbrld8/check_overview/?name=op109.net-ASO-Thomas

  Not bad for 20 dollars a year!

  One final note: Both ASO and WebFaction offer referral fees, which means that WP.org stands to gain monetarily as well.

• 

  johnmyr 8:44 pm on October 15, 2009 Permalink

  http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/10958

  Some plugins have unnatural peaks of 20.000 downloads pr day, making the stats unreliable as a measure of a plugins trust within the community. Should be acted upon.

  • 

    johnmyr 8:45 pm on October 15, 2009 Permalink

    http://twitpic.com/lnezv