Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #187 for Plone 3.1
On Dec 22, 2007 1:27 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that this is just the proposal deadline, what's the point in being so strict? If you are overloaded and/or have already done all the reviews by the time the late submission takes place, so be it; but if it costs you nothing extra (beyond what it would take for an on-time PLIP) to render an opinion for a PLIP that's a day or two late, then why split hairs? Since we're not merging anything at this point, it's hardly going to delay the release (presuming the later deadlines for review bundles etc are met). +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 219: New site search implementation
On Dec 18, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Tom Lazar wrote: same here, unless you can work something out (perhaps together with hanno) along the lines of the 'optional' migration steps that hanno has mentioned. i.e. folks could choose to include this update in 3.1 if they know they haven't customized search. any ideas on that? hanno? wiggy? I won't have time to do any work for the 3.1 deadline. Hopefully I'll have more time again for 3.2, but I cannot commit to anything here right now. Given an optional migration strategy is available this could be 3.x material in my non-voting opinion ;) i think so, too. so i'd be +1 if the grouping can be made optional. maybe it's possible to not change, but just extend the search view, so that the grouping only gets used by the new template, but the old one plus its customizations won't break? cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #187 for Plone 3.1
On Dec 16, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 1:14 PM, Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With all the cool new stuff going around, I completely forgot to propose my own PLIP for 3.1 inclusion. PLIP #187 is already implemented and can be merged with some small polishing. This is the result of my GSoC work. URL: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/187 If it's too late for 3.1, well, too bad. :( I am okay with including this one for 3.1; it would be a shame if we didn't include the work. actually i'm -1 on including this into 3.1, not so much because the plip was submitted late, but much more since none of the questions brought up in the comments as well as on the list have been answered so far. furthermore the plip itself doesn't supply sufficient detail about implementation, deliverables and especially the involved risks for me to come up with a halfway educated vote. sorry sidnei — i do think it is necessary for plone to get webdav support right, but imho we should sort out and discuss the open questions first. i would very much like to see this make it into 3.2, though. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #199 : Integration of ARFilePreview in Plone core (preview of office and other binary files)
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Thierry Benita wrote: Hi, hi thierry, jean-nicolas, I propose to include the File Preview feature in next plone release. It is a non intrusive feature that doesn't need to migrate anything in order to work out of the box. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/199 i'm -1 on including this into a 3.x release, since it doing it right — imho, of course — depends on a number of 4.0 features, i.e. plone.transforms, blob support and asynchronous event handling. i think all of these are required to avoid potential performance problems, both time- and memory-wise. however, as i do like the feature and don't think it'd be much code[1] nor too heavy[2] i'd be fine with integrating this into 4.0. cheers, andi [1] it's just an integrational package after all [2] we've got image scales as well, so using zodb blobs should be no problem provided the previews can be deactivated -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] preliminary results for PLIP selection call for votes!
hi all, On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:37 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: ps: i still got 4 votes to cast, but have to go offline, since i'm occupying a room in which people want to go to sleep now... sorry about that — i'll post my votes and do the bookkeeping in the morning. here's a first summary of all votes cast so far by the framework team on selection particular plips for inclusion into plone 3.1: * submitted plips (see http://plone.org/products/plone/releases/3.1) : 26 * votes expected: 5 x 26 = 130 * submitted votes: 98 of 130 = 75.4% (only counting votes cast on the plip pages) as it looks danny has only casted a few votes through the mailing list, but not updated the corresponding plip pages yet. also, they're far from complete, afaik. so danny, could you please asap either go through the list of plips and add your votes or alternatively post a list of all your votes here? not counting danny's votes we're at 94.2% with 6 missing votes. for your convenience, these are: * Tom on #187, #195, #218, #219, #221 * Rapahel on #187 please also try to cast those asap. that said, how long do we want to wait for those missing votes and do we have a plan on how to proceed if they don't arrive? i'd suggest waiting until midnight tonight at most, i.e. one day, and then accept/reject plips by majority vote. thoughts? for the time being i think it should be pretty safe for plip authors to judge if their plips will be accepted for 3.1 from the current standings — at least for the big majority of plips. these are: #184: +4 (4 votes) #187: +0 (2 votes) #195: +3 (3 votes) #196: +4 (4 votes) #199: -4 (4 votes) #200: +4 (4 votes) #201: +3 (4 votes incl 1 abstained) #202: +4 (4 votes) #203: +4 (4 votes) #204: +4 (4 votes) #205: +4 (4 votes) #207: +4 (4 votes) #208: +4 (4 votes) #209: +4 (4 votes) #210: +4 (4 votes) #211: +4 (4 votes) #212: +3 (4 votes incl 1 abstained) #213: +4 (4 votes) #214: -4 (4 votes) #215: +4 (4 votes) #216: +4 (4 votes) #217: +4 (4 votes) #218: +3 (3 votes) #219: -1 (3 votes) #220: +4 (4 votes) #221: +0 (3 votes) attached you'll find a compilation of all votes for reference. cheers, andi #184: Include more/improved portlets Framework team vote Posted by Martijn Pieters at December 13, 2007 - 22:10 +1, with the qualifier that I'd like the PLIP to be locked down to the 3 portlets listed there now, and that, as Martin noted, the static portlet will use the kupu formlib widget from PLIP 200. Framework team vote Posted by Andreas Zeidler at December 13, 2007 - 23:03 +1 (see http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2007-December/001484.html) Framework team vote Posted by Tom Lazar at December 14, 2007 - 21:28 +1 seconding martijn's limit to the three portlets and #220 Framework team vote Posted by Raphael Ritz at December 20, 2007 - 08:07 +1 under the restrictions pointed out above. #187: Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV Framework vote Posted by Martijn Pieters at December 21, 2007 - 22:47 +1 (low hanging fruit as the work is already done) Framework team vote Posted by Andreas Zeidler at December 22, 2007 - 10:01 -1 (see http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2007-December/001623.html) #195: Support product dependencies Framework team vote Posted by Martijn Pieters at December 13, 2007 - 22:19 +1 Framework team vote Posted by Andreas Zeidler at December 13, 2007 - 23:45 +1 (see http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2007-November/001406.html) Framework team vote Posted by Raphael Ritz at December 17, 2007 - 13:29 +1 #196: GroupUserFolder removing Framework team vote Posted by Andreas Zeidler at December 13, 2007 - 23:19 +1 on cleaning up and fixing broken links, but -1 on replacing existing tools (see http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2007-December/001507.html) Framework team vote Posted by Tom Lazar at December 20, 2007 - 13:01 I second this. Framework team vote Posted by Raphael Ritz at December 20, 2007 - 08:15 +1 on cleaning up the UI and making it use the proper API but -1 on tool removal/change. I would consider that OK for Plone 4.0 but not for 3.1. Introducing deprecation warnings, however, could be considered OK. BTW: I'm somewhat confused here myself because as pointed out in the PLIP the GroupUserFolder isn't usable since a while anyway but I simply don't know whether it could be considered safe for removal is I cannot judge whether anything still might bepend on it (most notably 3rd-party add-ons which we have promised not to break in this release). Framework vote Posted by Martijn Pieters at December 21, 2007 - 17:04 Another
Re: [Framework-Team] A question about bundles and PLIP 203
On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi guys, hi there :), How do you feel about a lite review bundle that basically is just an instruction like Use ploneout 3.0 branch and svn switch src/ plone.app.portlets to the following URL? Perhaps it's a good alternative for you guys in cases where there's only one package that's changed? i'm fine with that, even though i think wichert's suggestion of a buildout based on plone.recipe.plone would be more convenient. that way things take up very little space and time to set up, but are still nicely manageable in separate directories. i kinda like being able to just leave things untouched in their own directory to be sure nothing has changed accidentally. also, with plone.recipe.plone we can easily avoid potential conflicts (in the rest of plone) due to svn upping at different times... - PLIP 203 makes it possible to register portlets using plone.app.portlets. I'd say that if and when it's accepted, we should use this for Plone's own portlets (in portlets.xml), to save some Python code in setuphandlers.py. +1 However, I'd prefer to do this after the PLIP has been merged. It's a zero-risk thing: if we don't get around to it, the current setup will work just fine and users will never notice the difference. It just saves me managing yet another branch and saves you reviewing and merging yet another branch. IMHO, branching CMFPlone should be avoided if possible, since this quickly leads to a merge headache or things drifting out of synch in review bundles. What do you prefer? i'd agree and trust you to change it properly after the #203 has been merged. i'd assume there are or will be enough tests to make things are working anyway. and just in case there will be too little time, that change could also make it into 3.1.1, imho. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP documentation
On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi, hiya, I just put some documentation on the implementation of PLIP 203 up on the PLIP page (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203). hmm, i'm probably missing something, but the implementation sections of that plip is still empty (when viewed both anonymously and logged- in) and i kinda have the feeling i've read it all before... anyway, that's definitely a helpful thing to do, so thanks, potentially in advance. :) I would encourage others to do the same! Perhaps the framework team should insist on some documentation? there should indeed be some sort of documentation and/or hints to help us with reviewing the bundles as this would probably shorten the time needed immensely. so thanks for the reminder, martin — i'm +1 on making this a requirement. not necessarily on the plip pages themselves, a .txt that comes with the package, patches or buildout or an email to this list would also be fine with me. Short of producing or updating how-tos or tutorials on each new PLIP, this is the best way in which integrators and other developers can get wind of the changes we are putting into 3.1 and learn how to use them. Since many of the 3.1 PLIPs are aimed at integrators, I think this is an important part of the process, and one that we didn't do well enough with for Plone 3.0. good point, so documentation on the plip pages is preferred! :) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #209: Add buildout to Unified Installer
On Dec 14, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Raphael Ritz wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] The configlet would benefit all Plone installations, not just the unified installer, so we should treat it separately. true, +1. raphael, could you quickly write that up? I would prefer if someone else could do that, sorry. I'm in the middle of an important workshop with fluctuating internet access and very limited time for this (before Monday at least). hmm, seems this will have to wait for 3.2 at least. i'm just mentioning it again in case raphael or someone else would like to file a 2do for themselves... ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: Timezone PLIP anyone? (was: Re: [Framework-Team] Deadline today, but what timezone?)
On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:56 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote: Speaking of Timezone, did anyone write a PLIP about user-configurable timezones? I've been meaning to write this for a while... The only information I could find was this page: http://plone.org/events/sprints/past-sprints/snow-sprint2/IntlFormattingPlan being way past the deadline by now i think it's safe to say that no such plip was submitted for plone 3.1. however, reading the above page i think it would definitely be a worthwhile addition to plone, so i hope you're gonna follow up on it and create a plip in time for 3.2. but, and just as a side note, i'm not sure it should go as far as javascript and cookies or even sessions to try to determine those locale settings, i.e. the injection part should be dropped imho. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP documentation
Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: I just put some documentation on the implementation of PLIP 203 up on the PLIP page (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203). hmm, i'm probably missing something, but the implementation sections of that plip is still empty (when viewed both anonymously and logged- in) and i kinda have the feeling i've read it all before... anyway, that's definitely a helpful thing to do, so thanks, potentially in advance. :) Well, I just amended/corrected the proposal section, so that it's now accurate and more complete. I would encourage others to do the same! Perhaps the framework team should insist on some documentation? there should indeed be some sort of documentation and/or hints to help us with reviewing the bundles as this would probably shorten the time needed immensely. so thanks for the reminder, martin — i'm +1 on making this a requirement. not necessarily on the plip pages themselves, a .txt that comes with the package, patches or buildout or an email to this list would also be fine with me. Well, informing the reviewers what they need to look at it is one thing; helping others who want to understand what's changed in 3.1 and how it affects them is slightly different. A .txt file in a bundle helps the former, but I think the PLIP page is the natural page to write out or provider pointers to the latter. Short of producing or updating how-tos or tutorials on each new PLIP, this is the best way in which integrators and other developers can get wind of the changes we are putting into 3.1 and learn how to use them. Since many of the 3.1 PLIPs are aimed at integrators, I think this is an important part of the process, and one that we didn't do well enough with for Plone 3.0. good point, so documentation on the plip pages is preferred! :) This is an area where we've been pretty bad in the past, so it makes sense to try and tighten it up. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP documentation
On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:31 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: I just put some documentation on the implementation of PLIP 203 up on the PLIP page (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203). hmm, i'm probably missing something, but the implementation sections of that plip is still empty (when viewed both anonymously and logged- in) and i kinda have the feeling i've read it all before... anyway, that's definitely a helpful thing to do, so thanks, potentially in advance. :) Well, I just amended/corrected the proposal section, so that it's now accurate and more complete. that would be everything following The assignment directive has the following attributes:, right? i wasn't completely sure about this part, but somehow thought i had read it before... and the waybackmachine doesn't know about the page either. :) Well, informing the reviewers what they need to look at it is one thing; helping others who want to understand what's changed in 3.1 and how it affects them is slightly different. A .txt file in a bundle helps the former, but I think the PLIP page is the natural page to write out or provider pointers to the latter. yep, absolutely. i just hadn't read the remainder of your mail before i started answering, sorry. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Kupu PLIP for 3.1
On Dec 16, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 9:25 PM, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't have internet connnection until Monday, so I hope it's OK that I get the PLIP in then. Since this is more about the acceptance of the idea than delivering the implementation at this point, I assume the above ticket has enough info for you to make a decision for now. Not really, see above. However, seeing as I feel okay about the WebDAV PLIP being included, I feel I should be lenient here too. I also already voted on more than half the submissions, so I in that vein an extra PLIP on Monday is also fine by me. afaik no such PLIP has been submitted up to now and since it's already 5 days past monday i'd say this proposal cannot be considered for 3.1 anymore. sorry alex. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #187 for Plone 3.1
for the record, i totally second andi's approach re: the deadline issue. it's a tricky dance, for sure and we must never forget that we're dealing with voluntarily submitted offers of (often) hard work which shouldn't be cast aside lightly, but then again, we do need a timetable in order to get out releases in a timely fashion and there definitely will be a 3.2 coming along not too far down the road. just my $0.02, tom p.s. and yes, maybe it *is* a german thing, andi ;-) On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi martin, On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:27 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: i don't mind about a few hours or timezone differences, but imho we should consider plips which have been submitted more than a day late. that should have read shouldn't, of course — sorry for any confusion. Given that this is just the proposal deadline, what's the point in being so strict? i just don't think it makes much sense to first give a deadline and than right away let it slip again, especially with a newly introduced step in the process. imho we should try to stick with what we've decided and not sort of give out the message that it's okay to be late. you're right of course in saying this is only the proposal deadline, which is not an important one, but then again people would like to know if their plips have been accepted asap, and i guess the late submissions are already causing a delay, since half of the missing votes are for them. and that's not counting the proposed additions in non-plip form. otoh i don't think we should or need to be too strict either, which is why i've included #187 and #221 in the list of pending proposals and also reviewed and voted for them. i've also made the lateness a low priority aspect when voting, since we weren't very specific about handling this beforehand. Since we're not merging anything at this point, it's hardly going to delay the release (presuming the later deadlines for review bundles etc are met). that's right, but all of the above is just my personal opinion and does not in any way represent the framework team. it's totally fine with me if my team-mates think otherwise and outnumber my (non- negative) votes here... :) however, i think we should indeed be strict with the review bundle deadline and also with future plip submission deadlines. maybe it's just a german thing or something, but imho it shouldn't be to hard and/or time-consuming to write or at least draft a plip and send out an email to the framework team within almost three weeks after the announcement of the timeline, no? cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Kupu PLIP for 3.1
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Dec 16, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 9:25 PM, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't have internet connnection until Monday, so I hope it's OK that I get the PLIP in then. Since this is more about the acceptance of the idea than delivering the implementation at this point, I assume the above ticket has enough info for you to make a decision for now. Not really, see above. However, seeing as I feel okay about the WebDAV PLIP being included, I feel I should be lenient here too. I also already voted on more than half the submissions, so I in that vein an extra PLIP on Monday is also fine by me. afaik no such PLIP has been submitted up to now and since it's already 5 days past monday i'd say this proposal cannot be considered for 3.1 anymore. sorry alex. In addition the questions from Danny have also not been answered. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIP204 complete; PLIP203 complete but may need further work
Hi all, Just FYI in case you want to jump-start some of the reviewing of actual code: * PLIP 203 (portlet assignment import with GS) is complete: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203 I've asked the dev list what to do with portlet assignment *export* and purge. I'd like some opinions on that before I attempt any further implementation of that. Please have a look at that post if you want to voice your opinions. :) * PLIP 204 (content rules import/export with GS) is complete: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/204 I haven't created bundles yet, but will do so closer to the bundle deadline. I've attempted to document the new functionality in some detail on the two PLIP pages, though, so if you want to comment on that, feel free. If you really want to play with the code, just svn switch to the relevant branches of plone.app.portlets (PLIP 203) and/or plone.contentrules and plone.app.contentrules (PLIP 204). My other PLIPs are also largely done, they just require a bit more testing and code cleanup/organisation. I'll take another stab at this and then create a pile of bundles in the new year. Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Kupu PLIP for 3.1
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Dec 16, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 9:25 PM, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't have internet connnection until Monday, so I hope it's OK that I get the PLIP in then. Since this is more about the acceptance of the idea than delivering the implementation at this point, I assume the above ticket has enough info for you to make a decision for now. Not really, see above. However, seeing as I feel okay about the WebDAV PLIP being included, I feel I should be lenient here too. I also already voted on more than half the submissions, so I in that vein an extra PLIP on Monday is also fine by me. afaik no such PLIP has been submitted up to now and since it's already 5 days past monday i'd say this proposal cannot be considered for 3.1 anymore. sorry alex. In addition the questions from Danny have also not been answered. I think the underlying problem here is that no-one seems to own this (I assume Duncan is too busy and/or taking some well-deserved Christmas holiday). With no ownership, it's unlikely to get done in any case. :-/ Alex's original email said: I won't have internet connnection until Monday, so I hope it's OK that I get the PLIP in then. that sounds like claiming ownership to me. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Suggestion for adding Usecase information
After having waded through a big pile of plips I often (as a less technical oriented member) had problems determining what the actual usecase was that it was trying to solve. I would like to suggest (when thechcnically possible) to add such a section in a plip. I'd like to see a real-world usecase example (for the less technical ppl) what the plip has to solve/support/whatever. Something like: Suppose someone wants to write a product that supports this or that. Right now he has to do this or that to do this but with this plip in place he only has to do such or so. Right now, the Motivation section isn't exactly that. In most cases, the author immediately dives into technical details. I think it would help to have this addition? Or am I talking nonsense here? Cheers Danny. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Kupu PLIP for 3.1
On 15 dec 2007, at 23:24, Danny Bloemendaal wrote: On 15 dec 2007, at 21:25, Alexander Limi wrote: Hi guys, Just a quick email to say that I have been traveling (and without internet connection :( ) since before the PLIP deadline. The one I want in 3.1 isn't really a core thing as such — it's in Kupu — but I think it should have a PLIP to make it follow the process anyway. It's detailed in this issue: http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/6882 (Duncan has already made Kupu work with the latest Webkit/Safari builds, so half the PLIP is already done) Well, that's a bit too quick. I have been using kupu with webkit lately and I can't say that it is production ready. Either kupu or webkit does strange things with selections like inserting weird spans with strange webkit classnames. Which forces you to switch to html view quite often. It needs some more thorough testing. So it's not done yet (but almost there). Yesterday Duncan and I spend the afternoon experimenting with kupu and webkit (together with some webkit developers) and we reported a few problems that right now make it almost impossible to use kupu with webkit. There's still a lot of work that has to be done, mostly on the part of webkit. So the only thing that we can do now is to write tests and submit bugs in webkit's tracker. But the guys at webkit so far have shown interest in the matter. So.. to be continued... ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: preliminary results for PLIP selection call for votes!
Sorry for the delay guys. I commented on all the plips. On 22 dec 2007, at 12:22, Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi all, On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:37 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: ps: i still got 4 votes to cast, but have to go offline, since i'm occupying a room in which people want to go to sleep now... sorry about that — i'll post my votes and do the bookkeeping in the morning. here's a first summary of all votes cast so far by the framework team on selection particular plips for inclusion into plone 3.1: * submitted plips (see http://plone.org/products/plone/releases/3.1) : 26 * votes expected: 5 x 26 = 130 * submitted votes: 98 of 130 = 75.4% (only counting votes cast on the plip pages) as it looks danny has only casted a few votes through the mailing list, but not updated the corresponding plip pages yet. also, they're far from complete, afaik. so danny, could you please asap either go through the list of plips and add your votes or alternatively post a list of all your votes here? not counting danny's votes we're at 94.2% with 6 missing votes. for your convenience, these are: * Tom on #187, #195, #218, #219, #221 * Rapahel on #187 please also try to cast those asap. that said, how long do we want to wait for those missing votes and do we have a plan on how to proceed if they don't arrive? i'd suggest waiting until midnight tonight at most, i.e. one day, and then accept/reject plips by majority vote. thoughts? for the time being i think it should be pretty safe for plip authors to judge if their plips will be accepted for 3.1 from the current standings — at least for the big majority of plips. these are: #184: +4 (4 votes) #187: +0 (2 votes) #195: +3 (3 votes) #196: +4 (4 votes) #199: -4 (4 votes) #200: +4 (4 votes) #201: +3 (4 votes incl 1 abstained) #202: +4 (4 votes) #203: +4 (4 votes) #204: +4 (4 votes) #205: +4 (4 votes) #207: +4 (4 votes) #208: +4 (4 votes) #209: +4 (4 votes) #210: +4 (4 votes) #211: +4 (4 votes) #212: +3 (4 votes incl 1 abstained) #213: +4 (4 votes) #214: -4 (4 votes) #215: +4 (4 votes) #216: +4 (4 votes) #217: +4 (4 votes) #218: +3 (3 votes) #219: -1 (3 votes) #220: +4 (4 votes) #221: +0 (3 votes) attached you'll find a compilation of all votes for reference. cheers, andi votes.txt -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.4 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIP184 - additional portlets
Hi guys, PLIP 184 is about adding new portlets. I've got two covered and mostly complete: - plone.portlet.static[1] provides static text with a Kupu widget - plone.portlet.collection[2] provides a listing based on a collection There's also talk of a find-and-render-document portlet, but we decided that was better left in an add-on. The PLIP also mentions a better RSS portlet. I won't be able to do that, but rumour is that Wichert has done it in the feedmixer portlet already. Is that correct? If not, do we have any other volunteers? Are there other portlets we should consider? Cheers, Martin [1] Static text portlet branch: https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.portlet.static/branches/plip184-plone3.1 [2] Collection portlet branch: https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.portlet.collection/branches/plip194-plone3.1 -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
