Incorrect footnote reference in https://wordpress.org/about/security/

[pbiron]

I believe the footnote reference in the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the Version Numbering and Security Releases section of ​https://wordpress.org/about/security/ is incorrect.

The sentence in question is:

A minor WordPress version is dictated by the third sequence. Version 3.5.1 is a minor release, as is 3.4.2.

and the footnote reference is ​#footnote3 and I believe it should be ​#footnote2.

[Otto42]

No, footnote 2 is used above that, for the release cycle mention. Although I'm not sure why Nacin is mentioned in footnote 3, nor why it points to the wordpress.com VIP page.

[pbiron]

I know that footnote 2 is used above, I just thought that both should point to it.

But on further investigation, maybe the sentence in question should actually link to a new footnote with ​https://make.wordpress.org/core/handbook/about/release-cycle/version-numbering/?

[dd32]

Replying to pbiron:

But on further investigation, maybe the sentence in question should actually link to a new footnote with ​https://make.wordpress.org/core/handbook/about/release-cycle/version-numbering/?

That looks like the best route to take here IMHO. I'd also support the removal of Nacin from footnote3 as it doesn't really make sense as to why it's there.

[nacin]

As much as I cherish this footnote that I didn't know about until today, obviously it should cite an actual page and not just me. I'd agree that the core handbook page is the right target.

I may have simply just said this enough times out loud, but I have a theory for how this came about: I vaguely recall speaking at a VIP big media meetup years ago in which I even more vaguely recall talking about minor releases. It's possible that this link to VIP either got truncated or used to reference this somehow.

[nacin]

I was thinking about this talk, from August 2013: ​https://wpvip.com/2014/08/26/how-wordpress-evolves-full-transcript/. My theory appears plausible.

[dd32]

Replying to nacin:

It's possible that this link to VIP either got truncated or used to reference this somehow.

That's what I had thought too, I went digging back into the earliest draft I could find that I had access to, and there wasn't much more context available unfortunately. I suspect the sentences were shortened/reformatted and the original intention of the footnote was lost.

[dd32]

Replying to nacin:

I was thinking about this talk, from August 2013: ​https://wpvip.com/2014/08/26/how-wordpress-evolves-full-transcript/. My theory appears plausible.

Almost :)

I spoke too soon, i had another draft to check - Your theory was correct: it was a paraphrased quote from a presentation - Slide 16 in the 2nd presentation here: ​https://wpvip.com/2013/07/09/andrew-nacin-scaling-wordpress-optimizing-security/

"The team consults with well-known and trusted security researchers and hosting companies." — Andrew Nacin, WordPress Lead Developer, in a presentation ‘WordPress.org & Optimizing Security for your WordPress sites,’ June 2013.

• ​http://vip.wordpress.com/security/

I'm assuming it was a featured post on the VIP security page at the time.

Looking at the draft history, the footnote 3 being attached to the version numbering looks like an accident, it seems it was added with the intention of linking to a page like ​https://make.wordpress.org/core/handbook/about/release-cycle/version-numbering/ but not added/renumbered.

[coffee2code]

In 9580:

Main theme: Update broken footnote link on security page to appropriate Core Handbook page.

Props pbiron, dd32, nacin.
Fixes #4937.

[pbiron]

@coffee2code thanx, I'd forgotten all about this :-).

I just noticed that the page has a link to a PDF version of the document. Is it possible to update the footnote in the PDF as well?

[coffee2code]

@pbiron: The PDF is part of the GitHub repo for the secuity white paper: ​https://github.com/WordPress/Security-White-Paper

Which reminds me I do need to make a PR to sync my changes to there. However, the .pdf was last generated 5 years ago it looks like, so it hasn't been updated in quite awhile. Updating the .pdf file is probably worth a separate PR.