Hi Jon,
Jon Stahl wrote:
One of the symptoms of that is the fact that some of of key components
lack committed long-term maintainers. I think that's in part because we
haven't done a great job of articulating where we need more hands, and
how to get folks involved.
That's probably true. How
I want to propose PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default
Motivation
--
I suspect that by now most of us have realized that the current inline editing
behaviour in Plone 3 is not very practical. It has two main problems:
* it is very easily triggered by default, which causes unwanted
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I guess I'm the first one. I want to propose PLIP 228 for Plone 3.3.
Ok, second, Hanno got there first :)
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simpl
I guess I'm the first one. I want to propose PLIP 228 for Plone 3.3.
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
Heh. I seem to have opened up an interesting thread of conversation.
Which, I suppose, was half of what I subconsciously intended. ;-)
I agree with Hanno that the current scope of the FWT is indeed limited.
And it was not really fair of me to imply that the FWT should pick up
the longer-term
Hi.
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.
Short version:
Ship PloneLanguageTool 2.1 instead of 2.0 and
PlacelessTranslationService 1.5 instead of 1.4 with Plone 3.3.
Hanno
__
I'd guess this makes a good candidate for an in-person discussion at the
conference :)
My main point is probably, that we all have been too busy and we need to
drive Plone forward now or it will never happen. I'm also extremely
scared by key people leaving the community all the time, without an
eq
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The problem I have with the current state is that we have been
exceedingly bad at looking at maintenance cost of new technology we use
and features we include. Consensus building so far has most of the time
meant, that we do include new features all the time. There's no
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that not having continuity of architectural vision across
>> releases, including the ability to remove broken / abandoned components,
>> is a really dangerous place for Plone to be.
>
> I think there is architectural vision in Plone, b
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [1] Perhaps the KSS vs. Bling debate of yore came close
dexterity vs devilstick could be the next one
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
10 matches
Mail list logo
