On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
I don't know how other reviewers see this but
at least I didn't consider my positive responses
in all cases to mean ready for merge as we are
entering a second round now: authors picking up
on reviewer comments.
+1
Example:
On 2/5/09 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
hi wichert,
On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I
can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet.
Can I please get a
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[...] otoh, all reviewers should have informed the PLIP authors via
cc (or at least i hope so!?) so they know about these (minor) issues.
as for 246, i'm especially +1 and will comment on your review notes
in the next mail... :)
heh,
On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Interesting, that is not how I interpret a +1 at all. To me there
are two possible outcomes right now: declare a PLIP ready for
merging, or declare it unready for merging for a number of reasons.
perhaps to clarify a bit: my +1 actually
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
This however, resulted in a 404. It turned out, that the view was only
registered for IATFolder and IPloneSiteRoot, but not for `Large Plone
Folder`
a.ka. IATBTreeFolder. I took the liberty of `fixing this myself`__ ;-)
On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I haven't looked at the code, but why restrict this to those container
interfaces alone? Isn't some IContainer or OFS-level interface all
that
is required? Once the Plone site root is supported, the code likely
doesn't rely on any of the
Hi Wichert,
Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail.
This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review
status as of Wednesday:
Reviews Complete
Accepted: 126, 197, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 246
Rejected: 234
Reviews Not Yet Completed:
232
thanks steve, for the summary report!
there's only one thing i'd like to point out (or rather make
explicit), namely, that:
On 04.02.2009, at 17:48, Steve McMahon wrote:
[...]
PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot
Review Complete: -2
does not mean, that it is flat out
On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
Hi Wichert,
Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail.
Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should state
why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to do to get them
accepted in the next
hi wichert,
On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I
can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet.
Can I please get a proper report which covers the PLIPs that have been
reviewed
On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add
detail.
Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should
state why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to
On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review
status as of Wednesday:
first of all, thank you steve!
Reviews Not Yet Completed:
232 (review bundle never submitted)
this is not correct, imo. the bundle was submitted late
12 matches
Mail list logo
