Skip to:
Content
Pages
Categories
Search
Top
Bottom

Root profiles deprecated in 1.9.2?

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Avatar of Hugo
    Hugo
    Moderator

    @hnla

    As far as I can tell looking through core files there is no deprecated note on this constant, the article has an odd edit by user name not seen before who also does not figure in revision history, checking all the user revision history existing shows no one having added that so must be this mystery user & their last article edit. I’ve removed the deprecated addition for now.

    Avatar of henrywright
    henrywright
    Moderator

    @henrywright

    @hnla Seems odd why somebody would want to make an edit like that?

    I was getting worried there for a while – absolutely love root profiles! Good to know they’re not being deprecated. Panic over :)

    Avatar of Hugo
    Hugo
    Moderator

    @hnla

    @henrywright if you have a minute might be worth jumping into irc and asking if anyone else can confirm that root profiles are safe, as for the edit I’m very perplexed by it, had thought I had done it in error :) I worry about curating codex now though :)

    Avatar of henrywright
    henrywright
    Moderator

    @henrywright

    Just had a response from Paul, he confirmed root profiles are here to stay. profiles.wordpress.org uses them!

    Avatar of John James Jacoby
    John James Jacoby
    Keymaster

    @johnjamesjacoby

    Root profiles are not deprecated, though we have some planned obsolescence for almost all of our global constants, moving them into functions with filters and/or options.

    Our rewrite rules improvements for BuddyPress 2.0 will ideally enable any component to exist at a root level. At the time that code was written, it solved an immediate problem for us, but going forward this feature should not be exclusive to profiles.

    Avatar of henrywright
    henrywright
    Moderator

    @henrywright

    I didn’t think they were as I’ve read about the plans for rewrite rules in 2.0.

    @hnla that must have been a rogue edit to that page in the Codex

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.