Re: [Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe

2007-11-23 Thread Raphael Ritz
Alexander Limi wrote: On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:59:23 -0800, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe

2007-11-23 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original proposal. i'll have about two or three days between christmas and january 9th,

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe

2007-11-23 Thread Martin Aspeli
On Nov 23, 2007 11:24 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original proposal.

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe

2007-11-23 Thread Andreas Zeidler
On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: we would need to know/decide there will be a 3.2 first, imho :) I want to do a 3.2. +1 same here — i didn't want to sound like i wouldn't. it just felt like we hadn't ultimately decided on that yet. andi -- zeidler it consulting -