We should be able to set in the plugins config array the an orderby (Plugin, Source, Type, Status)--mainly Plugin and Type I would imagine as I can see theme developers wanting their REQUIRED plugins at the top (maybe even with a different background highlighted CSS option).
Gary and I both discussed this as this was the way I originally had it. It may be something we put in the future, but we figured that most people are going to require/recommended only a handful of plugins and that people can generally read. :-) Given that, having an orderby parameter may be useful so that they can order the plugin by any column (perhaps even a custom column if we open up that avenue later).
We don't need that level of customization.
I don't mind having the required plugins grouped at the top, with recommended plugins grouped underneath, but each group should be alphabetical. If a plugin is required, then it's required, and having any particular one above any other required plugins seems pointless.
This is definitely preferred: "required plugins grouped at the top, with recommended plugins grouped underneath"
I'll see about adding a sortable option to the table so that the user has the ability to sort them.
The end-user doesn't need to be able to sort them - there aren't going to be that many in the majority of cases.
We can make the decision to put required (a-z) at the top, followed by recommended (a-z) next.
Ok yes, that would be the preferred way of doing it. I will do that for 2.3.0 for sure.
addresses #82 - it fixes the issue, needs to be checked for efficiency
I've fixed this issue in dev, but I need someone to look over the commit and make sure there isn't a better way of doing it. Basically I split the plugins array into 2 arrays by type, sorted each of them alphabetically, merged them back into the original plugin array and then sorted it in reverse alphabetical order ('required' comes after 'recommended') to achieve the result. It works fine, but just want to make sure there isn't a better way to approach it.
The current way of doing it is fine until someone else finds a better approach. Closing this issue.