8 Comments

  1. Jeff Chandler

    hmm, I give him props for the endeavor, will be interesting to see how long it lasts. Fortunately, it’s not like Jetpack has an update every few days. If there is such a demand for individual modules to replicate specific Jetpack functionality, I wonder if a team of people can get behind particular extractions with the simple task of maintaining them. So far, it seems like most Jetpack Extraction plugins gain traction, then disappear or go dormant.

    Report

  2. Joachim Jensen

    I’m with Jeff on this one. While I agree that Jetpack is indeed full of features that one might not need – some call it bloated – I don’t see this as the way to go. Not unless the modules add some extra functionality, that is?

    It is already possible with Jetpack to activate and deactivate modules, and if there are some modules that you just don’t want to be activated on your site, ever, you can use the filter “jetpack_get_available_modules”

    Report

  3. Ryan Hellyer

    I’ve considered doing this myself. But I was worried that changes to the core of JetPack may screw up my bot and cause it to trigger faulty updates. I don’t want to have to check every update before it goes live and if something broke, I wouldn’t want to have to run around fixing it in a hurry. So for those reasons I never pursued it.

    Report

  4. George Stephanis

    “… However, it should be noted that Jetpack team doesn’t like providing support for others’ plugins.”

    Sulaiman advises users to request support from Jetpack based on the original module in question, instead of referencing the JP Bot plugin.

    Does this sit wrong with anyone else? We have a team that provides free support for a free plugin, and he’s advising people to try and ‘trick’ us into supporting an unofficial downstream port of our code?

    If the user finds a problem downstream, and duplicates it in the latest release or master branch of the official Jetpack plugin, that’s one thing, but … this just feels … dishonest to me.

    Hoping it’s not just me.

    Report

    • Sarah Gooding

      George – I think you missed the second sentence of that paragraph, which clearly states “I don’t provide support for any JP plugin, unless the issue cannot be reproduced using the original Jetpack,” – So yes, people have to test with the original jetpack first before submitting any tickets. I don’t think he’s being dishonest, just setting boundaries for what he’s willing to support.

      Report

      • Ryan Hellyer

        I think it’s this bit with George thought felt dishonest, which seems to recommend users lie about which plugin they’re requesting support for from the JetPack team:

        Sulaiman advises users to request support from Jetpack based on the original module in question, instead of referencing the JP Bot plugin.

        That’s another reason I never went down this path myself. It felt a bit weird requiring people to ask the JetPack folks for support on something they’re not directly associated with.

        Report

    • Anas H. Sulaiman

      No George, you got it wrong. Sarah got it right.
      I am not asking anyone to trick you, you are smarter than that.
      I am just asking users to verify if the issue is actually present in the original, in which case you would be more interested than me in fixing it. Also, I am not as responsive as I should be, and Sarah knows that.
      Calling me dishonest is not cool, and “tricking” is also not cool.
      I admire your awesome efforts though.

      Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: