On 05.05.2009, at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that
the
proposal in general meets the favor of everyone.
The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the
release. There seems to be broad support for freeing th
On May 5, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
FTR, one of the things I'd considered working on at the Balloon
Sprint was the portal_skins/browser_layer/browser resources
differences. Andi, would you be interested in that?
interested f
On May 5, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 5 May 2009, at 20:42, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
i agree. perhaps we could try to aim just a little bit higher.
"Unify portal_skins and browser resources" and "Make pages
folderish" don't sound all too exciting, for example, but i think
the
On 5 May 2009, at 20:42, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
i agree. perhaps we could try to aim just a little bit higher.
"Unify portal_skins and browser resources" and "Make pages
folderish" don't sound all too exciting, for example, but i think
they'd help solving two pretty important/annoying pr
On May 5, 2009, at 8:24 PM, David Glick wrote:
+1 on the modified proposal of aiming for a "less risky" release
called Plone 4.0, with the caveats that:
- The release needs to offer improvements of significant value to
justify the effort in upgrading (Hanno's spreadsheet of proposed
changes
Just catching up here on the west coast of the US...
+1 on the modified proposal of aiming for a "less risky" release
called Plone 4.0, with the caveats that:
- The release needs to offer improvements of significant value to
justify the effort in upgrading (Hanno's spreadsheet of proposed
c
1) Everyone is for a near-future release of the less risky work
being done in trunk
2) Calling it 3.5 breaks the dot release contract. Go with "Plone 4"
instead.
+1
I'd also be okay with (and in fact in favor of, if it didn't create
too much additional work) releasing another round of Plon
(Re-post to framework-team with different sender to make it through)
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the
> proposal in general meets the favor of everyone.
>
> The controversial issue is the exact version
On May 5, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that
the
proposal in general meets the favor of everyone.
The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the
release. There seems to be broad support for
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 16:57, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the
> proposal in general meets the favor of everyone.
>
> The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the
> release. There seems to be broad support for
On May 5, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the
release. There seems to be broad support for freeing the current Plone
trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the
envisioned scope of this proposal ins
Hi.
To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the
proposal in general meets the favor of everyone.
The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the
release. There seems to be broad support for freeing the current Plone
trunk from a version designator an
12 matches
Mail list logo
