Re: [Framework-Team] proposed plone 3.1 timeframe
On Nov 22, 2007 9:40 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: KSS is a good example of how things should work: they are always working on improving KSS and have their own release schedule. The jquery work Martijn Pieters has done is another good example: he implemented that completely at his own time and pace and it's been almost ready for merging for a month already It's not THAT close to ready ;-) I see both sides of the coin here, Wichert is correct in insisting on shorter release cycles, Martin is correct that December is not the month to do this. I won't have much time to review bundles over New Year for example, not with a move coming up at the end of January as well. Can we add just 2 weeks or so to Wichert's schedule? -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #195: Support product dependencies
On Nov 26, 2007 10:10 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to suggest PLIP 195 for inclusion in Plone 3.1. You can find the full thing here: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/195. All implementation work has been done and no migrations are needed so I feel that this would be a good candidate for 3.1. +1 from me. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs for 3.1
On Dec 3, 2007 11:20 AM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in this particular case i'd suggest the end of the week if that's okay with everyone? I won't make that, this week is already too full. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #212: Use jQuery Javascript Library
On Dec 12, 2007 6:27 PM, Florian Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the other PLIP I want to propose besides #213. Martijn did all the hard work for it already. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/212 I'll of course abstain from voting on this one. :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] collecting votes / assigning plips to 3.1 in PSC
On Dec 12, 2007 11:02 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for starters, i will associate all plips discussed here with 3.1 (once the framework team has the proper permissions). perhaps each member could then add his vote to each plip's progress log? +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ 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 13, 2007 5:06 PM, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please consider PLIP #209: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/209 for Plone 3.1 The proposal is to provide a version of the Unified Installer that builds the base Python, but then uses buildout for the final steps. The would replace the existing Unified Installer, which is based on the traditional tarball installation approach. Having never used the unified installer myself, I find it hard to fully appreciate the risks involved with using buildout for this. However, I am a great fan of buildout and using it as a basis for Plone installs is in my opinion a honking great idea. +1 from me. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIPs for 3.1
On Dec 2, 2007 6:19 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/184 - Ship additional portlets This is actually raised by Jon Stahl, but I've been involved in the implementation of the portlets he's talking about (collection, static text, document rendering). I'd like to tidy up the portlets a bit (especially if the formlib PLIPs below are accepted and implemented). After that, this should be as simple as deciding to ship with a few extra eggs. +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. The PLIP is currently worded too open-ended but the discussion here has put me at ease. :-) Note that I see the static portlet as non-content, which is the common usecase. Using other content as a portlet is a different angle outside the scope of the PLIP and although I'd love to see that appear for Plone, that has many aspects to work out still making it too risky for 3.1, in my opinion. 2. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/200 - Kupu formlib widget We need a Kupu/WYSIWYG widget for formlib-base forms. I'd like to thise this in portlets as well as formlib-based content types. The implementation here is largely complete. Absolutely +1, a kupu widget would be a great asset. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/201 - Improved UberSelectionWidget This is about AJAX-enabling the UberSelectionWidget. Andreas and Florian and I have started this work already - it just needs a bit more JavaScript love. Again, I'd like to use this widget in a few more portlets, content rules and formlib-based types. +1, bring on the USW! 3. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/202 - KSS inline editing and validation for formlib forms This is largely implemented, though it needs to be packaged up. +1, making formlib forms a viable alternative to yet another archetypes aspect. :-) 4. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203 - Manage portlet assignments with GenericSetup This is about making it easier to set up portlet assignments in GS profiles. I have a design for this, but no code yet - I plan to work on it over Christmas. +1 5. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/204 - Manage content rules using GenericSetup This is quite similar to 203. Again, no code, but I know how to do it and hope to get it done for January. +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] collecting votes / assigning plips to 3.1 in PSC
On Dec 12, 2007 11:02 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps each member could then add his vote to each plip's progress log? How about putting your vote in a comment? That'd lower the chances of conflicts as well as make it easy to see the votes. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] collecting votes / assigning plips to 3.1 in PSC
On Dec 13, 2007 11:07 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 12, 2007 11:02 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps each member could then add his vote to each plip's progress log? How about putting your vote in a comment? That'd lower the chances of conflicts as well as make it easy to see the votes. I've just gone ahead and done this, for the PLIPs I have voted on already, including the already accepted #195. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIPs for Plone 3.1 - Flexibility with Portlet Managers / Types
On Dec 13, 2007 3:45 PM, George Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've submitted two PLIPs for Plone 3.1 -- http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/205 http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/207 Excellent PLIPs, well written, thanks. +1 on both from me. One motivation behind #207 is that with the current registration proceudre, some portlets such as the Calendar will be available in every new portlet column. An alternative way to handle this issue is by using PLIP to #205 register portlets like the calendar for IColumn and IDashboard. Unlike #205 and #207 though this proposal may break backward compatibility. I like the additional flexibility of #207 regardless of this issue. We could do both, provided you give us a PLIP on this before midnight. ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP: Template overrides
On Dec 14, 2007 1:50 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Malthe Borch wrote: If this belongs in Plone, then it's pretty much ready for inclusion. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/216 I do quite like this approach. I think it brings back some of the convention over configuration we've been moving away from. Does this conflict in any way with CacheFu? I say that because IIRC it monkey patches pt_render() and IIRC so does CacheFu. Not a criticism, just something to watch out for. By the looks of it it wraps the pt_render that's there. As long as CacheFu does the same thing, they can co-exist just fine. Only when one or the other discards the original method and replaces it completely do we have a problem, but only if the ordering is out. */me checks*. At a quick glance CacheSetup does store the old method for calling, but only calls it when caching is disabled. In other words, it wraps the pt_render it finds there, but ignores it when caching is enabled. Could the PLIP address this and make sure it's patch is not going to get botched by CacheFu? Pre-emptively import CacheFu's patches would already work around this, for example. My only concern would be whether this ties us into an implementation that we could want to solve differently in the future, e.g. using named template adapters. Again, not a criticism, it just needs to be thought through. I don't see any reason why the two approaches can't compliment each other. -- Martijn Pieters ___ 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 12:23 PM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And while we are at this: Maybe we should add some information to the setup configlet where we show the ZOPEHOME and such. How about adding the path to the Python that's used and the egg directories etc. +1. could we perhaps cheat and make that part of #209 to simplify things? or do we need an extra plip? Separate PLIP please, it's not that much overhead now, is it? :-) The configlet would benefit all Plone installations, not just the unified installer, so we should treat it separately. It may have security implications, for example, where a hoster may not want to reveal this much info to managers of hosted plone sites. Such issues would confuse the Unified Installer PLIP. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Two more PLIPs
On Dec 14, 2007 9:11 AM, Alec Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adapterized local role lookup (borg.localrole): http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/208 Adapterized workflow lookup: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/217 Thanks for the great PLIPs :-) +1 on both from me. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] When do we hear?
On Dec 19, 2007 9:42 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you can see from the 3.1 release schedule as set by Wichert, the framework team has set itself this friday as the deadline for selecting the PLIPs for 3.1. Whoops, I meant to include a URL for the schedule: http://www.nabble.com/Plone-3.1-timeline-td13939050s6745.html -- Martijn Pieters ___ 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 3:31 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. I'd like to hear from the other framework team members on this. Do we consider this PLIP at all even though it didn't make the deadline? We appear to have a sudden radiosilence. The same goes for the phantom Kupu PLIP from Alex and PLIP 221 from Laurence Rowe. We need to state whether they are too late or included for our consideration *before* our voting deadline friday night, so we can all consider them properly if we allow them. -- Martijn Pieters ___ 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
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: PLIP184 - additional portlets
On Dec 23, 2007 1:50 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it an idea that this collection portlet has some kind of next/ previous functionality that uses kss and ajax to get the next batch inside the portlet? With kss this is almost trivial and it enhances the UX of the thing. I hadn't thought of it, and I'm not sure I'll have time, but I'd be happy to include it if the team agrees and someone can help me with the implementation. Wouldn't that make KSS a requirement for anonymous users? -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] review deadline coming up
On Jan 28, 2008 10:13 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The review deadline for all PLIPs is this Saturday, a mere 5 days from now. Does anyone have an overview of the current review status? I am deeply sorry, I don't think I have *any* time to do any reviewing *at all*. I moved to an island this weekend, and thanks to a minor crisis with the landlady, I do not have any network at the moment, nor any time to do reviewing in next to regular work. I should have had the house in reasonable order by now, but things went otherwise. :-( -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] reviewing today
I am downloading bundles like crazy over leeched Wifi, while standing outside in a field.. I'll update bundles with notes as connections become available ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Two more reviews primed
I will take a look at PLIPs 205 and 218 next, this weekend hopefully. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Reviewed PLIPs 195, 184, 200, 203 and 204
I've reviewed Martin's plipathon (184, 200, 203 and 204) as well as Wichert's Product dependencies PLIP (195) today. 5 down, 5 to go. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Updated PLIP review deadline
On Feb 8, 2008 2:26 PM, Malthe Borch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly it lies now upon the framework team to finish the reviews. Members will have to retire if they're not committed to reviewing all bundles within the deadline. There's nothing wrong with stepping down from a task in a free software project; much better than preventing the project from progressing. Stepping down won't help us make the deadline. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Two more reviews primed
On Feb 8, 2008 11:54 PM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, martijn, could you please prefer one or two of those over #205/ #218, and tom, which of those will you be able to review and when? I'll take: #201: Improve the UberSelectionWidget UI #209: Add buildout to Unified Installer then and do them this weekend if possible. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Two more reviews primed
On Feb 13, 2008 11:39 AM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #205: Flexibility Associating Portlet Types [...] andi #218: Increase Restrictions, and Ability to [...] andi * martijn, as i think we'll have to end up with at least 8 reviews each, it would be great if you do one more as well (and let us know which, too). I have both 205 and 218 on my laptop already, so I'll tackle those next. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIP votes
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 connection today. My apologies! I did look through the review notes of PLIPs I didn't vote on, and agreed with the reviewers remarks. I therefor hereby cast my vote to echo the last reviewer's vote on each PLIP I didn't review myself. Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Merged PLIPs 184, 200, 202, 203 and 204
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (1) Why is the line five:registerPackage package=. initialize=.initialize / added -- isn't this only to allow a package to be installable as a Zope2 product? Is this needed for plone.app.portlets? It probably isn't. Can you take it out and verify that everything still works? If so, please commit the removal. If it doesn't work, do please remove the 'initialize' attribute and the initialize method from __init__.py. You only need those when registering object factories with Zope (so content types, tools, etc). The attribute is optional and should be removed when the initialize method is empty. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Merged PLIPs 184, 200, 202, 203 and 204
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or when you want the quickinstaller to be aware of your package. Are we talking about the same thing here? The initialize attribute isn't needed for the quickinstaller, only the five:registerPackage element, I think. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: 3.2 Release Manager
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I know I'm still release manager for 3.x. I've been waiting for the foundation board (in the person of that same limi) to answer some questions I asked about the release manager stipend. Once those have been answered I'll start planning a 3.2 release. I'm really glad Spanky's showing so much enthusiasm and willingness to do an important job. That said, I think there is a lot to be said for having the same release manager for the whole 3.x cycle, from a continuity and stability perspective. I must say that I agree with that sentiment, especially in light of what a great job Wichert has done so far. I'm in favour of not changing a winning formula. ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting in DC
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | from | til - tomster | 6th | 12th witsch | 6th | 12th wiggy | | raphael | | danny | | martijn | 6th | 12th -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Page Needs Updating
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Michael Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed that the framework team page on plone.org (http://plone.org/about/team/FrameworkTeam) needs a bit of updating. It would be really helpful for people like me to be able to track y'all down and get direct feedback when necessary on things like PLIPs. Be that as it may, but didn't you reach us all by sending email to this list? ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Page Needs Updating
On 18. aug.. 2008, at 21.12, Michael Dunlap wrote: To a degree, yes. But I don't know how many it's possible to reach and how many votes to wait for before I start campaigning for trunk merging. Generally, the team votes only on PLIPs during a pre-announced push for a new version of Plone. In your specific case, that'd be for Plone 3.3. Current Plone trunk will be version 4.0. I'd keep it on the list and not canvas us directly though. Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting at Conference
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 18:38, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am staying at the Carlyle Suites Hotel, 1731 New Hampshire Ave NW, which makes it Du Pont Circle, I believe. I completely missed the opportunity to let Ubiquityhttp://labs.mozilla.com/2008/08/introducing-ubiquity/insert a map reference there! Hereby: -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 23:59, Maurits van Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The plip is: #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/197 Originally proposed by Christian Scholz in December 2007. Seconded bij Martijn Pieters. I did not; Jens Klein seconded it, I gave my framework team vote on it already (a +1). -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Meeting up in DC
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 23:17, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I asked our conference social planner, JoAnna Springsteen, for possibilities for a dinner spot where we could meet up Monday night and actually hear one another. Here are her suggestions. I won't make it to DC and the conference this year due to personal circumstances. Hope you guys have a great time! -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 323: Resource Registries Improvements
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:54, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup, I guess most of us consider Andy to be that one but I know he sees this differently. Anyone from the team willing to take this on? /me steps back smartly. I won't be able to take this; as it is I am hardly covering all my current responsibilities. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 237 for Plone 3.3 - Minor i18n upgrades
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 16:56, Hanno Schlichting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to propose to accept PLIP 237 - Minor i18n upgrades for Plone 3.3. The full text is at http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/237. +1 from me -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 228: Restore 'Add Item..' menu on all pages
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 22:01, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I feel that removing the removal of the 'Add Item' dropdown in many places in Plone 3 is a regression in behaviour, and makes adding content a lot more cumbersome. The PLIP has so far only received positive responses from several people. The full PLIP can be found here: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/228 In view of the recent discussion on consistency in the 3.x series, I am -1 on this for 3.3. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 22:15, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to propose PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default Although we have a concensus to not remove, change or move major pieces of the UI, the inline editing feature is currently so confusing that I certainly feel this is an exception. +1 on this proposal. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 13:42, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to propose the following PLIP for 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/239 This is about making it easier to have custom indexing strategies on a per-type basis rather than having a global registry of functions. I've been itching to do this myself already. +1! -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #240: Improve locking configurability
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 07:31, David Glick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to propose PLIP #240 for inclusion in Plone 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/240 This PLIP is intended to provide several avenues toward addressing the problem of content accidentally getting left in a locked state. I've implemented a non-locking Trough-The-Web locking adapter for several projects now to circumvent the problem; a rather bigger hammer than we'd like. +1 on this proposal. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #187: Working out-of-the-box WebDAV
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 20:24, Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to propose PLIP #187 for Plone 3.3. +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 23:59, Maurits van Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I propose plip 197 for Plone 3.3. Or really for 3.2 as it is a small packaging change which fits well in the overall theme of 3.2. I mentioned that on this list a few weeks ago without reactions. The plip is: #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/197 I'll reconfirm my previous +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 13:27, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to propose PLIP 243 for Plone 3.3: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet. +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #MIA - z3c.autoinclude
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 22:48, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ethan Jucovy wanted to propose a PLIP for 3.3, which I've seconded. He has been having problems with plone.org and his laptop, but the text is pasted below. We'll get it moved to a real PLIP soon, but I'd appreciate it if you could review it. I can't find this on plone.org; is this still a proposal to consider? Enable automatic plugins for Plone with z3c.autoinclude I am generally +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:35, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ricardo Alves has been working (with me providing some guidance) on some incremental improvements to plone.app.portlets. We'd like to propose this for Plone 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/244 +1 from me. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:55, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On behalf of Andreas Zeidler, I'd like to offer up the following PLIP for your consideration for Plone 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/246 +1 from me. I am voting on the PLIP, not the implementation BTW. That's something for the next round. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plip 245?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:33, Danny Bloemendaal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it correct that http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/245 hasn't been officially proposed for 3.3? I can't remember we discussed it though. Correct; the author only announced it on plone-developers as a PLIP for a future version of Plone: http://markmail.org/message/el63mapo647dh32a -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Kicking off Plone 4: Release Manager candidate
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:45, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on both of them. Indeed! -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Draft Call for Team Membership Applications
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 17:10, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you like to help choose what goes into Plone 4? The Plone Framework team is now receiving applications for membership in the Plone 4 Framework Team. ... If you're interested, please send an introductory note, explaining your interest and qualifications, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Postings from non-subscribers are rejected, so if you're not a subscriber, send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a request for forwarding. I'd like to see people nominated as well; perhaps candidates need to have someone second them? Not sure what standing we'd expect from the nominator. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Draft Call for Team Membership Applications
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 22:37, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see people nominated as well; perhaps candidates need to have someone second them? Not sure what standing we'd expect from the nominator. Do you think you'll get a lot of candidates? If not, I'd say keep the process low-overhead and just take self-nominations. Okay; I guess we review the candidates anyway. I am just concerned that suitable candidates may be shy to step up themselves; it can take some guts to step up to the plate and say I want to help decide what the future of Plone is going to be like. Nominating should be an option too, something like if you know someone you think is perfect for the job, let us know. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Draft Call for Team Membership Applications
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 00:31, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got it. How's this? +1 from me :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Nomination Plone 4.0 framework team
Going out on a limb and against my own nature, I am nominating myself for the 4.0 Plone framework team. Apart from current framework team exposure, I bring 13 years of web development experience, (with 10 years of Zope and 4 years of Plone development). I worked 4 years at Zope Corporation, helping develop the CMF and Zope 3. I have strong opinions about code quality, testing, and how to make effective use of the component architecture, and I am the Plone javascript maintainer. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Close Nominations Soon?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:29, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It looks to me like we're getting a pretty good list of nominations. Shall we close nominations in a week? I can send deadline announcements to the lists and news. My nomination is in, so +1 ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Close Nominations Soon?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 00:33, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shall we set up a private list? (I can do that.) We could make Andi and Martin owners and they could approve subscriptions. (If there is a dispute over subscriptions, it could be appealed to the current framework team.) When a decision's made, we could delete the list -- or open it and repurpose it as the Plone 4 FWT list. I'd delete the list afterwards; I believe the discussion should be frank, and thus should be closed and not archived for general use later. The Plone 3.x and Plone 4 teams will be operating in parallel for a while, so maybe a separate list at that time is an option. Current Plone 3.x team communications are low key enough though that I don't think sharing the list will be a problem. If it's agreeable to everyone, Jon Stahl and I could be on the list to be available as facilitators and errand runners, but without votes. I'm sure that would be very helpful. However, since I am a nominee I can't really comment on that since I won't be part of the list. :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] FWT trac user for CC's that will post trac activity to this list
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 23:52, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote: I just subscribed my RSS reader to the feed for the 4.0 PLIP report and then added myself as a CC to every ticket in that report so that I can keep an eye on activity. I'll also have to keep an eye for new tickets on the feed to make sure I'm on the CC list. It occurred to me that I would prefer that mail traffic to go through the FWT list. We could simply set a policy and say that all PLIPs should have the FWT list address added to their CC. Would anyone else find this valuable? Would it cause any problems? Whaddya think? I don't quite see the need to have the FWT subscribed; too much noise for me, the RSS feed gives me enough info. A separate list would be a better idea. It's a pity Trac doesn't support ticket detail changes; there is a plugin for Trac 0.11 that supports this (see http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/DetailedRssFeedPlugin) but dev.plone.org still runs on 0.10. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [plone4] Release process
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 23:19, David Glick davidgl...@onenw.org wrote: I am definitely interested in seeing more work on filling out the holes in GS support in core Plone. If we include a tool for dump-and-reload content migration in Plone itself, I think it needs to be pluggable enough to be useful with non-Archetypes content as well as AT-based content. collective.transmogrifier already can load both AT-based content and non-Archetypes content, but is fully pluggable and only needs additional components to support more details as well as dumping. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP review deadline has passed - time to review!
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 13:51, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: #228: Restore 'Add Item..' menu on all pages — as this was only sort of conditionally accepted during the proposal phase, i'd take the fact that no bundle was submitted as an indication that wichert considered this not worth it? I thought it was rejected? I might have misremembered. It's trivial enough that I can make a quicky implementation of it though. No, it was indeed rejected. Not sure why Andi included it. ;-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 197 ready for review: feedparser as external dependency
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 17:19, Maurits van Rees m.van.r...@zestsoftware.nl wrote: PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it See http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/197 Basically the only thing that needs doing is: - Remove portlets/feedparser.py from plone.app.portlets. - Instead add FeedParser as requirement in setup.py. This has been done on this branch (see src/plone.app.portlets in this buildout): https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.app.portlets/branches/plip197-feedparser-as-external-egg This looks great, it is indeed as simple as this. +1 from me. One possible gotcha is that the *package* is called ``FeedParser`` and the *module* contained in that package is called ``feedparser``. ``easy_install`` can handle both spellings just fine. But I once encountered problems when using the lowercased name in setup.py. See http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7299 (which is where this plip originated). I could not reproduce that later, but I say we call the dependency ``FeedFeeder`` and everything should work. I take it you meant 'FeedParser' in that last sentence ;-) The name difference is perfectly normal. Eggs can contain more than one module and thus the egg name must be independent, and there are more eggs whose name does not match the contained module(s). A case in point is the Plone egg, which contains the Products.Plone module. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP review deadline has passed - time to review!
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 21:43, Andreas Zeidler a...@zitc.de wrote: Do whatever you feel is right considering that I missed the deadline. 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 yet or if only the notification mail went missing — somehow :). anyway, i'm +1 on considering the bundle. Same sentiment here, +1 from me to include it in the review. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #241 ready for review
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 01:20, Andreas Zeidler a...@zitc.de wrote: the review bundle for PLIP 241 (Clean up auto-sort, auto-order code) is ready for review. you can get it from https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip241-auto-sort-cleanup/ review notes are available in the bundle's top-level `README.txt` file. On the whole the cleanup looks fine to me. I do wonder about http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/79241 though; Products.Archetypes.OrderedBaseFolder.OrderedBaseFolder does the same thing apart from the re-index, so you can remove most of the method in ATContentTypes. Otherwise this has my +1. A next step (not necessarily for this PLIP) would be to move that test in CMFPlone mentioned in r79241 to be moved to ATContentTypes, or both test and the re-index to be moved to Archetypes, if it is appropriate there. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #239 ready for review
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 18:56, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote: I've just finished the base implementation of PLIP #239, adapterise the ExtensibleIndexableObjectWrapper, for your review. This PLIP gets my +1. As usual, Martin delivers. Great implementation, great documentation. I did add one sentence to the README to clarify why IIndexer adapters cannot be used for workflow variables; it was a question I had while reviewing. No further comments required. :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think)
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 02:37, Ethan Jucovy ethan.juc...@gmail.com wrote: I've implemented PLIP #247, Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plugins (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/247) and committed a review buildout here: https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip247-automate-plugin-zcml for your review. I have started my review. To my dismay, however, the z3c.autoinclude package has several test failures. I understand that this package is also being used by the Grok project, and it appears to work as advertised, but test failures is not a good sign of package quality. For example, utils.txt somehow triggers an assert on line 99 in utils.py, which has a somewhat distressing comment: assert len(non_namespaced_dists) == 1 ### we really are in trouble if we get into a situation with more than one Could you comment on the state of these failures? The buildout is branched from the 3.3 review bundle buildout based on buildout.eggtractor, which automatically generates ZCML slugs for development packages and puts them in parts/instance/etc/package- includes. Since the purpose of PLIP 247 is to automate ZCML loading, those automatically generated ZCML slugs should be removed. I've hardly ever used buildout so I'm not sure how to change that behavior -- sorry about that; I'll change it if I can figure out how. Simply *not* use buildout.eggtractor; you only have 3 eggs in this buildout, add them to the develop, eggs and zcml lines and Bob's your uncle. Alternatively, just set tractor-autoload-zcml to false, which you did. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think)
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 02:37, Ethan Jucovy ethan.juc...@gmail.com wrote: I've implemented PLIP #247, Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plugins (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/247) and committed a review buildout here: https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip247-automate-plugin-zcml for your review. Here is my full verdict, as committed to the bundle readme: I've updated the buildout to not use buildout.eggtractor; you already had disabled it's zcml autoloading but didn't add Products.CMFPlone to the zcml line. Not using buildout.eggtractor at all is a better idea here, however. I've also added a foo.cfg buildout configuration to test the (very nice!) demonstration package. Just run bin/buildout -c foo.cfg to have the foo package included. After these changes, the z3c.autoinclude package appears to work as advertised. However, when running the z3c.autoinclude tests I see test failures, which worries me. I understand that the package is being used by Grok as well, and this PLIP merely covers the inclusion of the package into Plone, but I'd like to see some comments about what these test failures are about. Until I see comments that alleviate my concerns about the test failures, I'm giving this PLIP a +0. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #240 ready for review
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 18:12, Erik Rose psuc...@grinchcentral.com wrote: I actually first implemented it exactly that way (even called it IRefreshableLockable), then wondered if the complexity was worth it. I can go either way, but would like to hear some other opinions of best practice in a case like this. For what a non-3.x-FWT opinion is worth, I'd rather program against a proper IRefreshableLockable interface. Or, if nobody's implementing it in the wild, it'd be even better (less complex) to revise ILockable. ILockable is used in the wild; I've got implementations where TTW locking is disabled altogether for example, by implementing ILockable as no-op operations. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:49, Andreas Zeidler a...@zitc.de wrote: i think it's time to assign those now, mostly so that nobody gets the impression they're already done or almost... ;) with a total of 12 PLIPs we get to review six each, so everybody needs to sign up for one more. i just did so (for #237) and would like to ask you to fill in the remaining slots today. I've #232 to myself. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 20:47, Tom Lazar li...@tomster.org wrote: 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! Hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow to finish the RR enhancements review; I've had a unexpected long day today and am exhausted. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 21:00, Ethan Jucovy ethan.juc...@gmail.com wrote: * after seeing your reply, I tried running the tests in the PLIP buildout's environment with `bin/instance test -s z3c.autoinclude` and did see failures * i've now fixed them Yay! :-) * can you reconfirm that the failures you saw were from utils.txt? the ones i saw were from plugin.txt (though the assertion that was triggered was indeed the alarming one in utils.py) * briefly, the problem was that the foo module in the demonstration package i provided collided with another foo module that's installed in z3c.autoinclude's test environment (z3c.autoinclude/src/z3c/autoinclude/tests/FooPackage is the egg). moral: namespaces are indeed a good idea. :) i've renamed the demo package to plip247.foo and will also namespace z3c.autoinclude's test packages before the next release so this doesn't happen again I've updated the foo.cfg buildout config to reflect this. * the reason that assertion was so alarming and vague is because, when i wrote the code, i had no idea what sort of situation could possibly trigger it. so i figured i might as well throw in an assertion, even if // because i couldn't imagine what its failure would mean. now that it's actually popped up i think i understand it: it's asserting that no more than one non-empty-virtual-namespace-module named foo (for any string foo) will be importable simultaneously. i'll make the assertion less alarming and more informative as soon as i figure out a concise way to say that. Great! It's a good idea to explicitly warn about this. * do the tests pass for you now in a fresh buildout // if you svn up and re-install the foo demo package? again, they are passing for me now in this environment, let me know if you're seeing different failures. The tests now all pass, I've upgraded my review verdict to a +1. :-) Thanks again for taking the time to look at this, I really appreciate all of your notes (and the buildout help!) I'll try to be as responsive as I possibly can. np! Thanks for your hard work on implementing the PLIP! -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Quick team meeting
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 20:50, Calvin Hendryx-Parker cal...@sixfeetup.com wrote: I'd like to propose that all (or as many as possible) of us get together for some quick team meetings periodically. I think it would be good for coordinating and keeping on the same page. Some of the other groups in the community are planning similar meetings and scheduling them around the Plone Tune-Ups since most of us seem pretty engaged on those days. +1 The next one is this Friday and I'd suggest that we meet at 17:00 GMT. I can't promise I'll make that, private matters are messing up my calendar at the moment. :-( I'll send out Yugma conference info so we can share desktops if needed. Their service supports skype so make sure to download the Yugma SE plugin for skype if you want to skype into the call. https://www.yugma.com/share_skype.php Installed; took some doing on Leopard (it complains about lack of Administrator access, never asks for the password instead, so I needed run the installer with sudo from a terminal). For the first meeting I'd like to suggest: * That everyone checkout Plone 4 locally so we can talk at a very high level about the roadmap for this release * Better documentation for developers and the PLIP process and how it has changed -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll Framework Team Meeting
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 19:50, Matthew Wilkes matt...@matthewwilkes.co.uk wrote: I've tried to include all the relevant possible times in this, let me know if there's another I should add. Excellent poll, my info added (and updated after I learned this was to be a generic week). :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu 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 the current Plone trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the envisioned scope of this proposal instead. If I do not get a strong signal or message otherwise, consider this proposal changed in this regard. Having read the discussion on the bus, I can say I concur. +1 on this proposal. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
(Re-post to framework-team with different sender to make it through) On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu 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 the current Plone trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the envisioned scope of this proposal instead. If I do not get a strong signal or message otherwise, consider this proposal changed in this regard. Having read the discussion on the bus, I can say I concur. +1 on this proposal. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 2009: Going from here
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:15, Steve McMahon st...@dcn.org wrote: 1) Should there be a significant new feature release of Plone this year? What are its most basic goals? Which framework team is in charge? Hanno already outlined the goals, I'd say go with those. I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for this; this team already has the mindset to get this going; the future plone team (trunk team?) is focusing on vision right now, which I think may not be what's needed for an in-between team. 2) What should this new release be called/numbered? I'd still go for a 4.0 number here; anything in the 3.x range would add confusion about stability, a promise I wouldn't be willing to break. You've had a lot of feedback on the numbering question from the dev and docs lists. May I suggest that you seek some additional feedback from the Marketing Committee? Version numbering is not just technical, it's a matter of expectations and perception. The Marketing team may be able to give you some feedback on the confusion or perception problems that might result from one choice or another. Give them a deadline for giving feedback. +1 -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 2009: Going from here
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 18:16, Martijn Pieters m...@zopatista.com wrote: 1) Should there be a significant new feature release of Plone this year? What are its most basic goals? Which framework team is in charge? [..] I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for this; this team already has the mindset to get this going; the future plone team (trunk team?) is focusing on vision right now, which I think may not be what's needed for an in-between team. On second thought; this may be a significant enough release, with it's own 4.x release series, that perhaps a new team altogether is warranted? -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] FWT, Let's meet up
2009/10/28 Alec Mitchell ap...@columbia.edu: I'm in. Any evening or sometime during Friday open space works for me. Let's find a restaurant tonight and eat together! -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] FWT, Let's meet up
2009/10/28 Martijn Pieters m...@zopatista.com: 2009/10/28 Alec Mitchell ap...@columbia.edu: I'm in. Any evening or sometime during Friday open space works for me. Let's find a restaurant tonight and eat together! Let's meet at the lobby right now and head out? -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] FWT, Let's meet up
Let's find a restaurant tonight and eat together! Let's meet at the lobby right now and head out? We'll meet at Soul Cafe at 20:00: http://www.soulcafe.hu/ and head out from there. Map reference: http://bit.ly/2RAXdV -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 4.x Framework Team Nominations Open
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Steve McMahon st...@dcn.org wrote: The Plone Framework team is now receiving applications and nominations for membership in the Plone 4.x Framework Team. I'll bite. I hereby submit my application to be a member of the 4.x FWT. I enjoyed the 3.x FWT participation, and now that the turmoil around our housing situation has settled, I have the time again to do more than be a member of the 5.0 team. Credentials: member of the 3.x and 5.0 teams, 11+ years of Zope and Plone experience, author of and contributor to a long list of Plone add-ons, etc. I think most of you know who I am and since I hate CV writing, I'll leave it at that. :-) -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Using plone.testing / plone.app.testing in Plone 4.1
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 16:50, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Stay with the status quo, and hope that plone.testing/plone.app.testing become the standard for Plone 5. In the meantime, people can use it in non-core packages only. 2) Use them as test dependencies, and let people choose how to set up their own tests 3) Write a separate PLIP for the inclusion of these two packages into our KGS (but not for the porting of all existing PTC tests, since that'd be a pretty big task) I'd go with option 3, for the same reasons as Hanno's. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Today's Call (Oct 12, 2010)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 17:59, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote: Current reviews: Craig: 5 Rob: 5 Alec: 3 Elizabeth: 2 Laurence: 0 Matthew: 0 Martijn: 0 Ross: 0 Though shamefully behind, I did complete 1 review (#9473). -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Rescheduling tomorrow's call
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 17:55, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote: Can we push back tomorrow's call for another week? I've wound up with 2 conflicting meetings on top of our call. I've heard from two others who wouldn't be able to make it tomorrow as well. Not a problem for me, tomorrow or next week is fine. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] No luck connecting tonight
Calliflower is not accepting my pincode tonight, it looks like only Yiorgis and Craig managed to get in in the first place. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] plone.app.theming editor branch
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 14:07, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's necessarily adding features. It's improving the UI of something that's already there (but hidden in the ZMI). To the end-user it's a new feature, if only because it adds new UI. I'd wager the UI team may want to take a look at that. :-) I will at one point merge it to p.a.theming and release it. Whether we include that release in a 4.2 KGS or 4.3 one is probably a bit moot. But if the FWT wanted it for 4.2, and there was a date for beta, I'd like to know. Conversely, if the FWT have reservations about the JavaScript libraries being used, then that'd be good to know before spending much more time integrating them. I didn't have any chance yet to look at those packages, sorry. -- Martijn Pieters ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
