Is there anything you would REMOVE at all from ClassicPress?

I never use pingback/trackback and the like. so for me is a yes remove. because nobody wants an insecure site prone to attacks and spam. I agree on relying on more modern systems like Webmention.
About gravatar, what I mean is that the avatar generator could be a plugin (a simple plugin that hooks in something that is not gravatar) and yes, generally if we remove it we can totally include a basic avatar management in core.
you have to think about two things however in relation to avatars: multisites and communities where user generated content is key. there should be limits in place or people with no knowledge about image optimization are going to upload to sites very big images and this could result in bad performance in those sites.

1 Like

I agree with removing both xml-rpc (and leaving webmentions for a plugin) and gravatar (and replacing the avatar functionality with something self-hosted).

1 Like

There’s a table in the database called wp_links
I’ve never seen it used. Perhaps there’s code related to it that is also not used? Afaik it was „moved to a plugin“ about 9 years ago, and that plugin I’ve also never seen in action on any site. Maybe something that could be counted as bloat.

1 Like

“Before version 3.5, WordPress had a so-called “blogroll”, “bookmarks”, “links” - these were entries that had their own separate menu in the admin-panel, just like “posts” or “pages” have now. Since version 3.5, this menu disappeared if there were no links in it. The link functionality has been disabled, but it all remains in the WordPress kernel code and is very easy to enable it if you needed.” - Source.

Also read: #21307 (Remove Link Manager from core) – WordPress Trac

I agree with removing rests of the Link Manager/Bookmarks functionality.

And yeah, willing to start right now with all three topics but I don’t know what will happen next when people complain about their old plugins not working because it relies on an old pingback/xmlrpc/links function.

How far is the community willing to accept inevitable breaking changes form this initiative? What I am definitely not doing is remove one thing and then start adding random empty functions which return random stuff just to “make old plugins work”. No no.

How many votes is “fair” for a decision to be democratic?

In v1.x none (no backwards issue may be introduced. Not even if the plugin is at fault :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:)
In v2 do what you feel like.

That’ll be the status quo.

1 Like

This is contradictory to this:

But yeah, that second statement doesn’t make much sense anyway because if CP 1 is compatible with CP 2, then CP 2 limits = CP 1 limits. Or am I wrong?

So, I’ll start working on the 3 mentioned topics. But I wonder if the ClassicPress-research/ClassicPress-next should stay as a fork from ClassicPress/ClassicPress or if it should indeed become a standalone repo, so that it doesn’t constantly say “this repo is x commits behind”. Some people may want to keep on with CP 1.x (an that’s fair), but eventually both versions will be independent. Any benefits for having the fork relationship?

Im saying do what you want in v2 because no one even knows what v2 should look like, and to be 100% honest it will never come to existence imo.

If it will, it’ll be probably v2 because we update jquery or so.

So maybe I should have said „V3“ or even „your own cms“

You’ve better chances of bringing such changes to v2 than to v1, because v1 will not accept changes that might break things.
But yes, maybe it should be v3. Or as said a new cms. Not joking. It all depends on your Goal

But voting and discussing won’t either expedite nor actually make it possible, believe me on that.

1 Like

I understand. I’ll wait for more voices. The only thing I don’t want to do is waste energy.

@viktor asked me if I was still willing to do something.

I proposed a roadmap, got positive feedback, and now got more feedback on 3 potential realistic approaches for said roadmap.

Once the questions I proposed are answered, I’ll start on it.

If this leads to dead-end discussion about subtelties then I’ll respect that and leave :slight_smile:

Quoting questions for clarity:

1 Like

Yes. That’s what I mean.
The positive feedback came from 2 voices.
Perhaps 3?

What tells you that about the actual community behind cp?
Let’s remember that wp pushed gb based on community voices too. There, it was some thousands of against, thousands more in favour. Now there you know you do something for a large community

So the question is justified I think - what’s the goal?
Produce/help a community or because you like the challenge? If you like the challenge then going full blown own cms is many times more rewarding.

There’s so many things we could do… we just need pr’s
If you do it for the challenge it won’t matter if they get merged now or in future or never. If you do it because you want this tool to be in a certain way, you’re better off creating that from scratch.

Not trying to discourage you, just pointing out that voices here in cp will sum up to perhaps 10 voices. And even with all in favour that won’t mean it gets done, actually.

In answer to your questions - there’s no “amount of votes needed” defined anywhere and we don’t have numbers to actually define one. There’s no way breaking changes will go to v1. maybe to v2, but that again depends on who’ll accept the merges and not on us delivering the idea. And yes probably v2 will be as I mentioned (if ever existing) a “minor” change in the sense that maybe some libraries get updated but with major focus on keeping sites working. That’s what I’ve gathered from my experience here and discussions (endless sometimes) about the subject matter

1 Like

Thanks for your kind and realistic explanation of your wise perspective on the situation.

  • That some people are in tune with some of the ideas I proposed.
  • That the community is very small (which is totally fine).

I want to do it for a combination of challenge, nostalgy and creativity.

I understand that CP is not about doing something that entirely breaks from WP (in the sense of creating a new CMS from scratch) but what I still cannot grasp is… does CP aim to be a frozen WP 4.9 with some minor tweaks or does it aim to be something new, based on the foundations of WP?

If it’s the first thing, the whole branding should be changed and all the lean, lightweight and less bloat and so on should be removed from the descriptions because it would all be lies. It should say: “ClassicPress. The WP 4.9 version with minor tweaks and a few backports”.

All this fuss about a potential “Next” version, be it a 3, a 4 or a 6283 doesn’t make sense if CP 5 wants to be compatible with CP 1 because then it’s all just semantic BS. So that’s why I asked how far the community wants to go with breaking changes in the “Next” version. I don’t care working on it alone, I just want to know I am not doing it just for myself, because in that case, I will just do nothing.

1 Like

Lets just say: I joined the circle pit called ClassicPress, to not only keep WP pre-Gutenborg alive, but to also see some improvements over the “original”. So, in my case, you wouldn’t indeed do it “just for yourself” :wink:

cu, w0lf.

2 Likes

So did I.

I have been using CP since it started with Scott Bowler and a dream.

Everyone knew there would be problems with plugins no longer working with CP down the line, and forked or new ones have been made to help mitigate that. But WP 5 has made this a nightmare.

All my sites run on CP and I have to use old plugin versions to keep them going. I even have to run old versions of my themes as well. It is obvious something needs to be done to keep CP 1.x viable.

The majority of CP users do not post in this forum and I rarely do either. Doing so usually results in being intimidated. Looking at the number of views on topics shows people are reading them, but keeping their mouths shut.

I even ran a site for a while that was dedicated to following CP and had a forum where non-geek people could feel relaxed enough to post anything. But still they did not post.

CP 2.x has always been the version that would be vastly different from WP. We were told we would be able to use 1.x indefinitely and it would receive security updates as needed.

The recent debacle with 1.4.0 showed how moving too quickly can cause major problems. There is no simple solution to 1.x’s compatibility problems and not enough developers to fork plugins.

I know nothing about how CP works at core level, but if it could be made to work with WP 5 plugins, then it would solve our biggest problem.

I have been thinking about moving back to WP, but the classic editor is not going to work for much longer. If Scott’s dream is to be realized, the compatibility issue needs to be overcome. We don’t need anything removed in 1.x - we need something added.

2 Likes

There is nothing you can add to make this happen. This is a dead end discussion. You can call Einstein and he will say the same: the only way to keep a frozen copy of WP 4.9 working with modern WP plugins is, not use modern WP plugins but instead, fork them all and freeze them in the past too.

Now you know why users don’t post in this forum.

1 Like

They are afraid of Einstein? Or dislike common sense?

It’s funny, how when arguments fail, people look for a reason to get offended :slight_smile:

Appreciating harmless jokes for what they are, keeps the soul happy.

I have to correct myself about “no one knows what v2 should look like”:

To summarise:
v1 will not (and can not) break backwards compatibility. Both the much asked votes and the past reality show that. I think we all agree or at least accept that.
v2 has kind of a plan. Which one of is being worked on by our core dev (PHP version). I think given our resources, that plan is already ambitious.

Now, in that post I also explain why v2 is actually unreasonable:

we are not able to maintain more than one version at a time.


Let me be more straight: we are not able to really properly “maintain” a single release nor test our plugins prior to the releases. As others have mentioned “the recent 1.4.0 debacle” kind of shows that errors happen, and when they happen, we barely have enough hands on desk to fix them. Not to speak that with a even small base of invested testers, and plugin/theme devs preparing for releases by testing RCs, all those issues would have been avoided.

So, my opinion stands that
A) it does not matter how many voices will say “do these rather major changes”. It will not get done and if, then it will be a debacle. For so many reasons as there are Lins of code in CP.
B) at the same time, you are free to do whatever you want. Push a PR with the suggested ideas. Let it review and see what core dev’s will feedback to it. James has created a “CP Next” Git repo a good while ago for this exact purpose. Not a single PR has been pushed to it:

The work, even if it does not get immediately merged, will not be lost. It will be there, and if then it gets to the point of using it, it will be used!


To summarise our path so far, we have started (but never put to code) Relational Database in CP.
We have started (but never finished) jQuery Updates.
I start with those 2 because that is where I was directly involved.
The same is valid for Translations, Plugin and Theme Dir, TinyMCE, ClassicCommerce (and a re-refork thereof), ClassicSeo. Many of these are actual real vital parts of most sites.

We do have a pretty much finalised documentation site, that however also stalled, because all contributions stopped, and I can’t write all documentation on my own.

We did manage to get some great updates into the last release, inclusive new features.

So I honestly do not understand why now actually start another couple major projects, before we do not finish the vital parts.
The vital parts are at least ClassicPress security, ClassicCommerce maintenance and security, and probably Plugins reviews (over 20 pending devs and 15 plugins waiting since long time, some might be rejected, i do not know, what I know is that some have been complaining about their stuff not being reviewed)

Thus, IMO before we think - as a community and in terms of “voted/planned action” - about removing things that some folks might actually use (just like last debacle update, things we removed/changed had been and are still used) and then also write up new plugins to replace what we removed, we would have to invest that time into the vital parts.
It is the same type of work. Lots of research, coding, writing things up, yada yada - nothing different than moving XMLRPC to a plugin, deep down. And it actually bears fruits in the sense of that it will pull out a bit of that knife we have in our side.

I really respect and appreciate the enthusiasm brought every couple months by new or old users. Yet, I do have to ask, why focusing that enthusiasm towards long discussions that we probably deep down know will not lead anywhere?
Why not invest that time in the things that actually need or can to be done and that we love to do? If we can code, if we can strip a “bloated” CMS, we can also maintain a plugin or review a plugin or translate a string or write up a doc.

But I do not see involvement in that. And I don’t think this is because “intimidation” happens.

Sorry to say that, it is just what I observe, in most cases, not all, of course.

That said, if you want to work on removal of lets say XMLRPC or wp_links or anything else, just do it. Really, no one will stop you and it might actually even be used (sooner or later).
If you however want to do things that have a more immediate effect, the projects above are in dire need of this enthusiasm and volunteerism.

I hope this does not come down wrongly. I am agreeing that staying put is frustrating, yet it’s kind of what it is at the moment - and that’s why, if I don’t want to stay put, I will invest that time into my own projects - or try to contribute in the vital parts we lack.
Documentation, now a new testing infrastructure of “user” testing, and a couple minor features is where I saw I can actually contribute relatively effectively without entangling myself into a huge project of which I see no immediate application. That time (of such bigger project without clear end) I see better invested in my own projects.

4 Likes

It’s not offensive, it’s patronizing which usually implies “your opinion doesn’t matter” even if you didn’t mean it that way. Unfortunately, it tends to happen here in the forums. Sometimes to first time posters, and they end up being one-time posters.

The way certain people choose to word their replies, people who don’t know them, can perceive the tone as rude and patronizing. But that’s a different discussion.

3 Likes

First, some context: I use CP on all the sites I own, and I have done since the very first version was released. On some of the sites, I run a small business, and (with a partner) I’m planning another startup.

I appreciate what @anon66243189 has said, and I agree with many of his points. But I strongly disagree about one of them. To my mind, a new major version of CP (i.e. one that breaks stuff) is actually the very thing that will keep CP alive if it’s done the right way.

“The right way” to me means making CP modular. That’s actually the best way to address security (because no code need be included if it won’t be used). It will also make code maintenance much easier (because individuals can more easily specialize in what interests them). It will also encourage more devs to get involved (because the code should become much easier to read and understand). And it will enable more plugins to be written, because we can then focus on adding the hooks necessary rather than trying to stuff more code directly into core.

I don’t see that focusing on this will necessarily cause a drop in activity on v1, because (a) I think the development of the two versions will attract different people and (b) v2 provides the positive message of “Yes, we can!” rather than the mantra of “No, we can’t, because it might break things” of v1.

So I’m all for getting on with participating in any initiative for a v2. As @anon66243189 said, no votes required! The best way to get it accepted will be to create a v2 that works. And, as for its incompatibility with v1, of course it won’t be: that’s the point! But, if and when we get to the point of releasing v2, then we’ll need to think about how to enable sites to migrate from v1 to v2.

1 Like

I apologize for any potential offense I may have caused. Intentions are clear I hope. Sometimes warm words have worse intentions than cold words, and sometimes cold words are said with pure love.

I didn’t do anything yet because I feel it’s all barriers. I’m constantly asking for permission here. So yeah I better jump into my own boat and sail over there.

I just hate the fact that people keep saying “something has to be done to fix compatibility problems” but it’s clearly impossible to be WordPress and not WordPress at the same time. We’re getting lost in semantics… for nothing!

I started a repo here, I will follow my proposed roadmap on it. I made mistakes last time I tried, the mistake of trying to make everything at once. This time I’ll approach it step by step with no rush.

In the end what matters in this case is public code that can be reused. I just don’t want to push code into a repository that is forked from something I don’t resonate with and which will be constantly drawing me back. That’s why I created the repository on my own account, but I won’t rebrand anything because:

  • It makes no sense, this is not about branding but about making something happen. It probably took tons of efforts to make the ClassicPress organization a reality, and it wouldn’t make sense to try to start such a crazy effort on my side.
  • Whenever the community feels like (and If I manage to do something that isn’t pure useless shit), the whole thing can be moved to the official CP GitHub and it can be called CP 2, CP Next or WordPress banana.

I’ll now shut the F*** up and start doing something (after a good barbecue, of course!). Have a good weekend y’all! Peace peace peace.

Fun read: code is not poetry

1 Like

Great! I think your approach is 100% right!

1 Like