Am Sat, 09 May 2009 02:50:27 -0700 schrieb Alexander Limi:
On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:26:37 -0700, Alec Mitchell
ap...@columbia.edu wrote:
If you want to pinpoint a release that broke expectations with regard
to compatibility, Plone 2.1 is a far better example.
Just to make sure history is
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5 release up next.
sounds good to me, +1.
andi
--
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 5 May 2009, at 12:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5
that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both
refresh some
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some
people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the
current stable 3.x releases and the future.
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5 release up next.
sounds good to me, +1.
actually, i think it should still be plone 4.0 (with the remaining
features deferred to 5.0 or later). otherwise i think
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote:
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5 release up next.
sounds good to me, +1.
actually, i think it should still be plone 4.0 (with the remaining
features deferred
Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some
people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the
current stable 3.x releases and the future.
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5
On 5 May 2009, at 13:20, Martin Aspeli wrote:
snip
Yes, I agree with all of these, and do think they're needed.
So, 3.5 is a compromise. The skipping of 3.4 actually helps back the
story up. We could try something else, like Plone 2009, but I'm
pretty sure we'd regret that in 2010 for
Jens W. Klein wrote:
I just can say here: I agree to delay features and make the next major
4.0 and not 3.5. Dont make the same mistakes again (looking at 2.5).
Who said anything about delaying features?
This proposal suggests a feature set that is incremental to the 3.x
series, way less
Am Tue, 05 May 2009 22:08:14 +0800 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Jens W. Klein wrote:
I just can say here: I agree to delay features and make the next major
4.0 and not 3.5. Dont make the same mistakes again (looking at 2.5).
Who said anything about delaying features?
sorry - my bad english,
10 matches
Mail list logo
