Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies

On 01.06.2009, at 21:42, Hanno Schlichting wrote: I think we can move all the admin-UI stuff like preference screens, folder_copy, object_rename and author pages and the like from CMFPlone to browser views in Plone 4, as these tend not to be customized that often. +1 also, those views conta

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

On 13.05.2009, at 01:23, Steve McMahon wrote: By my reading, here is the list of those willing to participate in a Plone 4 framework team: Raphael R. Ross P. Matthew W. David G. Calvin H.P. Alec M. Erik R, Laurence R. [...] If you'd like your name added, or removed, please put in a message s

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5

On 05.05.2009, at 23:44, Steve McMahon wrote: So, a couple of questions for us all: 1) If we call it Plone 4.0, can we restrict ourselves to a modest list of improvements that will actually get coded this summer and tested this fall? that should be the litmus test for any feature IMHO, simple

Re: [Framework-Team] The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5

On 05.05.2009, at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting wrote: To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the proposal in general meets the favor of everyone. The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the release. There seems to be broad support for freeing th

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.5

for the record, i think this is a great idea. this will also take some weight off of the 4release, since some of its low-risk components will have had some real-world usage by then. also, it should make migrations from 3.x to 4.x easier, i could imagine. i'm also more than fine with eric as

Re: [Framework-Team] Working out-of-the-box WebDAV (PLIP 187) in Plone 3.4 or later

On 08.04.2009, at 11:02, Graham Perrin wrote: A question for FWT: * instinctively, where/when on Plone roadmap do you envisage PLIP 187? given that 3.3 is in rc state, 3.4 will be the earliest possible release. it would be great, if this work would be picked up and completed. i'm looking

Re: [Framework-Team] Quick team meeting

On 11.03.2009, at 21:25, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: Actually, I don't think it would be a bad thing for the 3 team to join. It would help with the project continuity. agreed. in this case, however, i'll be en route from norway, and so will andi. cheers, tom Cheers, Cal -- S i x

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #246 ready for review (pending review notes)

On 07.03.2009, at 14:38, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Ricardo Alves wrote: - Change the view name to "ics_view", which is the same name used for a single event. I find the current name ("calendar.ics") a bit confusing, because I would expect it to be the downloaded fil

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions

On 12.02.2009, at 13:19, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: [...] i did notice that test (which is why i added "almost" in "almost none of the changes are actually tested" ;)), but found that one was far from enough. anyway, tom will make sure there a

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions

thanks, calvin! i'll take a look at it ASAP, which probably will mean saturday, though... also thanks for the changeset url, that kind of stuff is really helpful for reviewers (*hint* *hint* to other list members ;-) cheers, tom On 10.02.2009, at 06:55, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: Hi

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions

absolutely fine by me. it would be great, though, if you could deliver the final version before wednesday, then i could review it on the last day of the berlinale-sprint here, after that i will be really busy with catching up on stuff. cheers, tom On 08.02.2009, at 07:24, Calvin Hendryx

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report

thanks steve, for the summary report! there's only one thing i'd like to point out (or rather make explicit), namely, that: On 04.02.2009, at 17:48, Steve McMahon wrote: [...] PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Review Complete: -2 does not mean, that it is flat out rejec

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 243 review buildout available

i have updated my review after the recent changes: --snip-- Second review after fixes (2009-02-02) -- After fixes by Wichert and Danny the picture looks much prettier :-) * All but two tests passed. One is explicitely related to another ticket and irreleva

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

On 30.01.2009, at 21:56, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: FYI i have completed my two remaining reviews and have additionally reviewed #243 which was without a review. I've fixed the problems you saw with #243. i've updated my local buildout and the the site

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

FYI i have completed my two remaining reviews and have additionally reviewed #243 which was without a review. there are still outstanding reviews from raphael, witsch and mj (or have they perhaps not updated the pliptallies page[1]?) and IMO #243 would also warrant a UI review! i have inc

Re: [Framework-Team] Concern about review progress

On 23.01.2009, at 10:07, Wichert Akkerman wrote: We are not almost a week into the two review period, and at this point two out of the required 22 reviews have been done, two PLIPs have not been assigned a second reviewer and none of PLIPs have received UI feedback. That lack of progress has me

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP review deadline has passed - time to review!

On 21.01.2009, at 08:36, Raphael Ritz wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] personally i think it'd be stupid to not consider changes that were ready for a while now. i mean, yes technically you missed the deadline, but to me i makes a subtle difference if you the code isn't quite ready ye

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

On 19.01.2009, at 16:36, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Jan 19, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: Only 2 plips do not yet have a second reviewer assigned: #237 "Minor i18n upgrades" #243 "Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet" Shall we tackle these ad hoc or

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

thanks wichert for your reminder and andi and raphael for your quick replies. i've taken this thread as opportunity to summarize the plips and who (so far) has taken on which review. i've included andi's and raphael's and added mine. since danny won't be able to do technical evaluations a

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: NuPlone and Plone 3.2

On 13.01.2009, at 00:14, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: The question now is how we deal with the release. We could: - Add Products.NuPlone as a dependency of the Plone egg. This would mean 'Plone' always comes with NuPlone, but there's no reason overt for the dependency. +1

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: NuPlone and Plone 3.2

On 04.01.2009, at 04:06, Martin Aspeli wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 3 Jan 2009, at 07:55, Graham Perrin wrote: In partial answer,

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP lifecycle

On 27.12.2008, at 23:28, Alexander Limi wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0800, Ross Patterson wrote: One way to keep these cross-checks lightweight might be to start with a statement of impact. There are code changes, for example, that have no UI impact. In such cases, it would be

Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List

On 18.12.2008, at 11:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 12/18/08 11:43 AM, Tom Lazar wrote: and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we agree at least on that

Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List

On 18.12.2008, at 11:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: [...] things like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the process, absolutely and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the

Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List

On 18.12.2008, at 11:21, Martin Aspeli wrote: In particular, one of the things we'd discussed and would like to see more of, is a consultative approach where the framework team reviewer asks for review from people outside the team. Anyone who is motivated to contribute opinions will be heartily

Re: [Framework-Team] Supported Plone Releases

my question is: how can the fwt decide this question if the key issue is the available man power and willingness to perform the actual support for a particular version. we can decide to support 2.5 but that alone doesn't make it so. personally, alec's statement would be enough for me to hav

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Close Nominations Soon?

my summarized $0.02 on this: +1 for excluding nominees +1 for off-list discussion +1 for temporary list for the discussion +1 for including optilude, jon and steve on that list +1 for keeping 3.x and 4.x on the same list (this one) @steve: did you volunteer to set up the list? i could also set o

Re: [Framework-Team] Close Nominations Soon?

On 20.11.2008, at 09:47, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: It looks to me like we're getting a pretty good list of nominations. yes, very good! :) Shall we close nominations in a week? I can send deadline announcements to the lists and news. wasn't t

Re: [Framework-Team] Fwd: Including a Documentation section in each PLIP

+1 i mean, what's not to like? ;-) seriously, i think it's a great idea to include documentation right from the start and coordinate with/delegate to the docs team. question: where do we put this to make it official policy? cheers, tom On 13.11.2008, at 19:49, Steve McMahon wrote: Hi Fra

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 4 framework team nomination

On 11.11.2008, at 08:54, Wichert Akkerman wrote: I feel that I know Plone and Zope reasonably well by now, and I arlready have a passing familiarity with the framework and release processes. that made me LOL ;-) SCNR! and for the record: i'd love to have you on board ;-)

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: 4.x team nomination

On 07.11.2008, at 17:18, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: Jon and I can maintain that. Maybe next year we should use a Trac ticket. you could also use a trac ticket now (instead of the wiki page). that would probably make it easier to trac(k) things.

Re: [Framework-Team] 3.3 timeline

On 03.11.2008, at 10:27, Wichert Akkerman wrote: I've been told the framework team wants to be involved with setting timeframes for releases. I want to propose to take this one step further during the PLIP handling phase: I would like the framework team to propose a timeline for PLIP implemen

Re: [Framework-Team] Draft Call for Team Membership Applications

On 02.11.2008, at 12:17, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 00:31, Steve McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Got it. How's this? +1 from me :-) me, too. the new version does sound a bit more inviting than the old one, good feedback, martijn! cheers, tom -- Martijn Pieters

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Draft Call for Team Membership Applications

On 31.10.2008, at 17:13, Steve McMahon wrote: We should get this out soon. If you'd like changes, please get them in right away. like i said, +1 from me ;-) go steve! Steve On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Steve McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DRAFT Call for Plone 4.x Framework Tea

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement

oops, this one slipped under my radar yesterday (as evidenced my steve's tally sheet). so for the record: +1 ;-) cheers, tom On Oct 26, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 23:59, Maurits van Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I propose plip 197 for Plone 3.3. Or

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default

On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:20 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote: Well, I am all in favor of having the UI fixed. Perhaps some of the kss boys can do this. You need to have a hover event that shows a button next to the widget (button can styles using css into a pencil or something) and the click shoul

Re: [Framework-Team] Draft Call for Team Membership Applications

thanks for the draft, steve! i wouldn't change anything, but unless my cold is still clogging up my brain too much, it doesn't seem to state the number of members the team will have, which might be worth mentioning to applicants. so perhaps we could stick that in there somewhere? cheers,

Re: [Framework-Team] Kicking off Plone 4: Release Manager candidate

On 28.10.2008, at 13:03, Alan Runyan wrote: +1 to Hanno/Martin being Plone 4 release manager/communicator same here! tom -- Alan Runyan Enfold Systems, Inc. http://www.enfoldsystems.com/ phone: +1.713.942.2377x111 fax: +1.832.201.8856 ___ Frame

Re: [Framework-Team] Comments on PLIP 244

On 28.10.2008, at 11:53, Ricardo Alves wrote: Hi framework team, I'm sorry I didnt' comment on the previous discussion about PLIP #244, but I wasn't subscribing this list. Anyway, I'd like to comment on some of the objections already posted in the PLIP page. About the usefulness of site-w

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

steve, here's the tally of my remaining plips: 126 +1 228 +1 236 -1 238 +1 239 +1 240 +1 241 +1 242 -1 243 +1 244 -1 247 +1 i've posted the votes and their motivations at the plips, but not on the list. cheers, tom On 28.10.2008, at 11:21, Tom Lazar wrote: yes, sorry for hold

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

yes, sorry for holding things up. i have seven plips to vote on and some office furniture to move, but i'm confident i'll get done within the next few hours while still making informed choices ;-) cheers, tom p.s. @steve: i'll send you a tally of my missing votes, so you should be able to

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default

my users first go 'oh cool!' when i show them the new feature and then, as time passes, ca. 50% find the default behavior more annoying than beneficial. the rest doesn't seem to care much either way. so, IMHO the current state is a usability bug for many folks and remedying it would help *t

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file

having looked at the diff (and having witnessed its creation on the plane ;-) i'd hereby like to +1 the plip, as well as the implementation. it's a small, useful enhancement and i would like to keep it small. let's keep refactoring ATCT for another day and plip ;-) cheers, tom On 21.10.2

Re: [Framework-Team] Notes from Framework Team Meeting in DC

thanks stve for the concise write up. this kind of stuff (i.e. putting consensus into written form) is very important imho. personally, i think your write up (and the decisions we reached during the meeting) strike a very good balance between being too formal and thus restricting on the one

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements

On 17.10.2008, at 00:39, Martin Aspeli wrote: I used to think that way, I'm not so sure anymore. Speaking to people about this over the past few months, I've come to realise that our model of thinking that the site root is the "parent" of all content from which things like portlets can inhe

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements

+1 from me The way I understand the proposed changes they are not breaking backwards compatibility, but simply make it easier to achieve already existing functionality. also +1 on the idea of making portlet assignments browser layer dependant. that's a feature i often find a need for. c

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: What is Plone 3.3?

On 14.10.2008, at 16:33, whit wrote: it gives me warm fuzzies to see the harmonious accordance of prudence :) for the record: same here ;-) cheers, tom -w On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:47:51 -0700, Martin Aspeli <[

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #187: Working out-of-the-box WebDAV

On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote: I would like to propose PLIP #187 for Plone 3.3. feature wise i think we all agree that it's a very desirable feature. IMHO i think it's a perfect match for 3.3 as it represents a backend improvement that doesn't affect API or UI. so i'm

Re: [Framework-Team] Meeting up in DC

the entry for monday: Monday, October 6th, 6pm, Ethiopian dinner at Meskerem 2434 18th St NW. so, see y'all there then! cheers, tom On 6 okt 2008, at 11:36, Tom Lazar wrote: On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote: I'll take that as a nomination for Fado. Fado it is!

Re: [Framework-Team] Meeting up in DC

On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote: I'll take that as a nomination for Fado. Fado it is! Shall we aim for 7pm? well, there's the dinner meeting at 6pm at the ethipian restaurant[1] and for 8pm at fados. my personal plan was to meet folks at 6pm at the restaurant (Meskerem 2

Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.2 and 3.3 planning

On 18.09.2008, at 05:04, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: if any of my previous conferences and sprints are an indicator, i just *know* that i won't be doing any actual fwt review work while in DC. but that's not important. review work is 'fleissarbeit

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.2 and 3.3 planning

if any of my previous conferences and sprints are an indicator, i just *know* that i won't be doing any actual fwt review work while in DC. but that's not important. review work is 'fleissarbeit' to use a nice german term here and can easily be done alone, whenever one can find some time. i

Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting at Conference

On 12.09.2008, at 10:22, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jon Stahl wrote: I'd love to join you all, if you're willing to let an interested bystander horn in. ;-) please do! :) absolutely! andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelst

Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting at Conference

On 06.09.2008, at 19:02, Steve McMahon wrote: Am I right that Raphael isn't going to be at the conference? If so, have we now heard from everyone attending? oops, sorry, missed the mailing lists for a few days. anyway, i'll be there all week, as well. i think, an early dinner meeting (i.e.

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: Framework Team Page Needs Updating

just for the record: the way i recall things, all current members pretty much agreed from the start to follow up until 3.2. now it seems, that that, which was originally (albeit vaguely) planned for 3.2 will be split up into 3.2 and 3.3. i'm certainly happy to serve on the board until 3.3 a

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Resource Registries improvements PLIP

tware. We must still support non-WSGI scenarios with the same level of functionality at least for a few more releases. So my vote is -1 on having this functionality on WSGI middleware only. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 14.08.2008, at 13:52,

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Resource Registries improvements PLIP

On 14.08.2008, at 13:52, Malthe Borch wrote: Plone should probably only name the resources that the browser needs to render the HTML document and leave it to WSGI middleware to optimize that, e.g. * Rebase to other hostnames * Concatenate * File-size reduction that sounds really good to m

Re: [Framework-Team] Resource Registries improvements PLIP

+1 from me, too. i'm wondering though, if there could be a more elegant solution to the SSL issue. i.e rather than requiring two registry entries with their own https-conditions, why not make that decision at render time i.e. in the template? (i.e. Products/ResourceRegistries/www/ jscompos

Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting in DC

steve, that's an excellent idea! can we do a quick 'show of hands' here on the list, which framework team meamber will be (if at all) when in DC? like so, perhaps? | from | til - tomster | 6th | 12th witsch | 6th | 12th wiggy | | raphael |

Re: [Framework-Team] availability over the next 5 months

hi wiggy et. al.! i'll be on vacation (and entirely offline!) from july 26th through to august 11th. other than that i will try my best to help get 3.2 out the door... bring it on! ;-) cheers, tom On 29.06.2008, at 21:43, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Can the members of the framework team

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] moving description to aviewlet

On 20.05.2008, at 06:53, Jon Stahl wrote: I agree that we should have a stronger opinion about this in Plone 4.0. Personally, I lean towards making it pure-metatadat and adding a "lead-in" content field. +1 FWIW, this is exactly what we are doing here for a current (newspaper) project a

Re: [Framework-Team] WebDAV changes, tests and process improvements

On 27.02.2008, at 17:43, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Graham Perrin wrote: On 27 Feb 2008, at 10:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With this lack of general knowledge, I didn't (don't) know ... My apologies! I just noticed

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: WebDAV changes

On 24.02.2008, at 21:49, George Lee wrote: Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: for the record: the front-page issue mentioned by wiggy did *not* occur in my testing of the bundle itself, which suggests that it is perhaps caused by some side-effect of previous merges. and certainly o

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: WebDAV changes

On 27.02.2008, at 09:57, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:00 AM, Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 24, 2008, at 5:30 PM, George Lee wrote: imho, yes. i still don't see how i should have caught the bug wiggy h

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: WebDAV changes

for the record: the front-page issue mentioned by wiggy did *not* occur in my testing of the bundle itself, which suggests that it is perhaps caused by some side-effect of previous merges. and certainly outside the scope of the framework-team testing... (not that it actually matters now, th

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: WebDAV changes

as a member of the framework team (and as somebody who co-reviewed sidnei's bundle) i feel the need to speak up. sidnei, i understand your frustration but please consider the following: * your bundle was one of the most complex ones submitted (certainly the one with the largest impact) * e

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote: Hi all, sorry for the late reply, had a busy day. Anyway, thanks again Raphael for your wrap up. On 20 feb 2008, at 15:48, Raphael Ritz wrote: Now, a variant that we might want to consider is only to clear (but not to issue the error in)

Re: [Framework-Team] Ticket #7816 Improve Framework Team process

On 20.02.2008, at 16:29, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: FYI, limi has created a ticket for improving the framework team process -- but s3kritly, it seems ;-). that's a PSPS focus area ticket, i.e. one of the things identified at the summi

[Framework-Team] Ticket #7816 Improve Framework Team process

FYI, limi has created a ticket for improving the framework team process -- but s3kritly, it seems ;-). thanks to raphael for the pointer, though. perhaps others would like add themselves to the cc: list: https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7816 cheers, tom

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

maybe i didn't understand you correctly, but i was under the impression that you had additionally suggestded that the inline validation should als explicitly *clear* and statusmessages. this would certainly address the issue you're mentioning below... at least i think so. *scratches head*

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

On 20.02.2008, at 09:35, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Thanks very much for the report Raphael. I'm going to treat this as the official recommendatation of the framework team. and so will i. some of the +3 and +4 would actually need to be increased by one, namely my own vote, which i chose to ca

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP votes

On 18.02.2008, at 13:52, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote: I haven't had an internet connection since Sunday morning, so I haven't been able to give my framework vote. I am now standing outside leeching some neighbour's wifi as I await my ADSL conne

Re: [Framework-Team] Suggestion for more a better streamlined process?

On 18.02.2008, at 11:41, Martin Aspeli wrote: Thanks Danny, There have been various good ideas about how to improve the process. I think right now we need to focus on finishing the release, but we should definitely capture the lessons learned afterwards and write up a clearer process, includin

Re: [Framework-Team] my review status

On 18.02.2008, at 08:05, Raphael Ritz wrote: Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: sorry for the delay, i went out with hannosch and lurker yesterday evening, instead of finishing my last review ;-) way to go

Re: [Framework-Team] Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

dout) installer. So there's a good chance that it also wouldn't work for you. Steve On 2/17/08, Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi graham, thanks for the hint, however, i had tried that already myself and it didn't work, either. sudo sh ./install.sh --target=/opt/zope/in

Re: [Framework-Team] my review status

On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: sorry for the delay, i went out with hannosch and lurker yesterday evening, instead of finishing my last review ;-) way to go. i finished 201 but still couldn't get 209 to work (despit

[Framework-Team] Re: tomorrow's PLIP review deadline

judging by andi's summary and the recent reviews we currently have the following plips that have only one review (there aren't any left, that have been submitted and have not been reviewed, so at least we've got that covered...) #187: Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV raphae

Re: [Framework-Team] my review status

sorry for the delay, i went out with hannosch and lurker yesterday evening, instead of finishing my last review ;-) i finished 201 but still couldn't get 209 to work (despite the hint from graham) now what? cheers, tom On Feb 16, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: just FYI sinc

Re: [Framework-Team] Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

ateron, and they will likely stumble over the same issues. tom On Feb 16, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Graham Perrin wrote: On 16 Feb 2008, at 11:55, Tom Lazar wrote: sudo sh install.sh --target=/opt/zope/instances/209 --user=tomster --instance=plip209 zeo Where you have sudo sh install.sh should

[Framework-Team] my review status

just FYI since the review deadline is *today*, as of now i have reviewed and submitted the following plips: #195: Support product dependencies #212: Use jQuery Javascript Library #213: Prepare for better Syndication #215: Include new KSS versions the fo

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #215: Include new KSS versions

S users' life a lot easier and thus perfectly fits the scope of the 3.1 release ("polishes under the hood") On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: a big 'thank you' from me, too. i think the changes you mentioned are well worth including in 3.1 and i wil

Re: [Framework-Team] Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

i just realized, that steve might not get notifications from trac, so i hereby post my previous comment: after checking out : and issueing the following command: sudo sh install.sh --target=/opt/zope/instances/209 --user=tomster -- instance=plip209 zeo i get the following output: ZEO Clust

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: buildout error for plip215

iming the ticket and will continue with my review. thanks, tom [1] http://vanrees.org/weblog/archive/2008/01/09/ppix-instead-of-pypi-from-now-on On 15.02.2008, at 16:21, Balazs Ree wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:36:18 +0100, Tom Lazar wrote: just reposting my ticket response, since i'

[Framework-Team] buildout error for plip215

just reposting my ticket response, since i'm not sure whether balazs has an email address in his trac preferences and don't want to further delay the process: when running the buildout i get the following error: Getting distribution for 'infrae.subversion'. While: Installing. Getting secti

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

On 15.02.2008, at 11:56, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: I can't reproduce any of these issues. I tried my exisiting buildout and I made a fresh co of the buildout and ran buildout with the option to get the n

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 213 ready for review

after looking at the diffs -- :-) -- i'd hereby like to cast my approval of this plip, as well. On 19.01.2008, at 18:48, Florian Schulze wrote: Hi! The buildout is at https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip213-syndication-preps Notes are in the buildout. I guess this is the smallest PLIP

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

include 212 for 3.1: how are we going to go about this? will we collect explicit votes from andi, martijn and danny? On 15.02.2008, at 13:41, Raphael Ritz wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: I can't reproduc

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 213 ready for review

On 15.02.2008, at 11:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: however, i have one problem, which is more svn-kungfoo related than to this plip. given the branch you've cut of CMFPlone https://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/CMFPlone/branches/plip213-syndication-preps how

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 213 ready for review

On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: Hi! The buildout is at https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip213-syndication-preps Notes are in the buildout. I guess this is the smallest PLIP of all :) yay, a nice small plip. it certainly works nicely during my clicktests. however

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:20:40 +0100, Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12.02.2008, at 23:41, Florian Schulze wrote: instead i got the following error in jquery.js (via firebug) a is not a function [Break on this error

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:57:42 +0100, Florian Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The only thing I could reproduce was the searchterm highlight thing which I will look into. I fixed this. yes, i can attest that the fix works here, too, ya

[Framework-Team] scope of reviews was: Re: [Plone-developers] Updated PLIP review deadline

On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: For 3.0, we had one main reviewer for each bundle who'd report back for a quick vote on the list. People with concerns could then dig into the code in more detail or request more specifics. interesting point. maybe that's what's holding me bac

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

On Feb 14, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:23:41 +0100, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Previously Florian Schulze wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:38:56 +0100, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >(i) when describing start/stop/status we might

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: otherwise we should have a complete set of votes by monday night, at which point i'll post the verdict or rather the recommendations of the framework team. that should leave enough time for merging and last-minute polishing before the alpha free

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Once you post your reviews (here?) what happens? How does the team arrive at a final yes/no vote? How long does that take? hmm, i can't decide on these, of course, but i'd still like to try

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

hello florian, hello martijn, i've completed my review and committed the notes in the svn bundle. i repeated the manual tests with windows IE 6.0, but not with 7.0 as i didn't have the time to install a new windows VM to install IE 7 without overwriting my existing 6.0 but since everything l

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 212 ready for review

hi florian, hello fellow framework team members, i started reviewing plip 212 on the plane back to berlin and got most covered. i committed my initial review and post a copy of it here, for your convenience. i still need to repeat the click tests i've done with IE 6 and IE 7, as i haven't g

Fwd: [Framework-Team] Two more reviews primed

, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 9, 2008 10:41:34 AM GMT+01:00 To: Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Framework-Team] February 16 Deadline?

thanks for the post george, i will definitely be able to meet the feb 16th deadline and hereby volunteer to additionally pick up any 'leftovers' if neccessary! cheers, tom On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:30 PM, George Lee wrote: Hi, When Andi suggested the February 16 deadline, it seemed to be base

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

On 07.02.2008, at 10:01, Martin Aspeli wrote: Once you post your reviews (here?) what happens? How does the team arrive at a final yes/no vote? How long does that take? in my particular case i will simply nag the other members on casting a vote on the plips i reviewed and then post back the

  1   2   >