On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:30:51 +0100, Hanno Schlichting
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, Zope 2.8 vs. 2.9 is a special case, as it is really Zope
X3.0 vs.
3.2, which is a 0.2 step and at least one year of extra development.
True. But Zope 3
Previously Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> I wouldn't want to make the decision on whether or not we are dropping
> support for Zope 2.9 for Plone 3.0 but decide it based on the features
> we might get this way. If we have a PLIP that requires Zope 2.10, so be
> it ;)
Aren't the requirements more in ve
As a non-member of the framework team I try to talk with a tiny
little voice here and hope not to do wrong by interfering. :-)
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:54:41 +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> ... continuing the one-word-subject tradition;
>
> I had another think about viewlets and Plone. Please see po
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:30:51 +0100, Hanno Schlichting
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, Zope 2.8 vs. 2.9 is a special case, as it is really Zope X3.0 vs.
3.2, which is a 0.2 step and at least one year of extra development.
True. But Zope 3 refactors a lot, and moves very fast. We may be bitin
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I had another think about viewlets and Plone. Please see post to
> z3-user, five and Plone lists (yes, I cross posted, so sue me). The
> short of it is, if we can get them in Zope 2.10 then I'd +1 dropping
> Zope 2.9 support for Plone 3.0.
>
> If the argument is stability, t
