On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
...
I wrote a big reply to Matt, and ditched it. +100 to everything you
said. :)
I'd suggest that:
a) We now formally ask PLIP authors to write to the plone-dev list
(not this list!) announcing their PLIPs and
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin Aspelioptilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
- c20188, c20190, c23197 — removal of PloneFolder (hannosch) — need to
double check whether this requires a migration for any persistent objects,
and write that if necessary
+0 to remove.
There's no persistent
FWT!
We have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, June 23 at 2PM EST
(1800 UTC). The Foundation Board has given me the go-ahead to try out
some different international conference calling solutions in an
attempt to avoid the Skype debacle that was our last meeting.
I've set up a
Joel Burton j...@joelburton.com writes:
I don't know what the discussion was like in deciding on this date. It
may still be the right decision to have it end now. I'm just
suggesting that, if it seems that quite a few people may think that
this is a slightly-too-soon date, that you may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joel Burton wrote:
Hello, Framework Team!
I, myself, don't have any questions or issues about the PLIP deadline
for 4.0. I'm not planning on submitting any PLIPs.
Over the past two weeks, though, while chatting in IRC with various
framework
On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a short-hop release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
least to my outsider's eyes.
Hmm,
Matthew Wilkes
matt...@matthewwilkes.co.uk writes:
On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a short-hop release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Tres Seavertsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a short-hop release, with minimal new feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
least to my
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Personally I'd be in favor of extending the scope of Plone 4.0 to some
degree and making a clear commitment to allow quite a number of the
suggested features to be done in the scope of Plone 4.1, 4.2, ...
releases. Much of the work that makes up Plone trunk (5.0?) today
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put the
things Laurence
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put
On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Eric Steele wrote:
I already have a calendar started. I'll work on getting that filled
out, published, and publicized ASAP.
actually, PLIP #246 was meant to introduce the possibility to set up
the plone calendar using plone.org itself: keeping all relevant
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, David Glickdavidgl...@onenw.org wrote:
- The current situation with regard to PlacelessTranslationService needs to
be reviewed to make sure that our language negotiator and product i18n dirs
are still getting registered properly following simplification/removal
Eric Steele wrote:
I have little to add to what Hanno and Martin have stated so well
here. To me, what shortcomings the Trac-based approach may have are
trivial enough for me to largely overlook and can be covered through
some further integration work by the plone.org team and/or better
Hi Hanno,
rant
Well, I really hate having default content around, that I have to
delete all the time and people use in tests that later on break if we
change it. The initial content just won't make sense for many sites
and people waste huge amount of times to try to get the initial
content to
15 matches
Mail list logo
