On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:25:46 +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Balazs Ree wrote:
How does this vibe with the jquery PLIP? That also changes the same KSS
code.
Currently in kss we only replaced kss's internal usage of cssQuery with
base2, and we did not suggest to do this generally
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:03:03 +0100, Balazs Ree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Framework Team,
we submitted the following plip:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/215
We suggest to use the following new kss package versions for Plone 3.1:
kss.core
New kss.core version 1.4,
Previously Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tom Lazar wrote:
could the teamwork members perhaps receive edit permissions for the 3.1
release?
I just tried to do that, but after a dozen of nginx gateway timeout's
and AttributeError 'dict' object has no attribute 'RESPONSE' on every
combination of
On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Maybe some else knows how to handle the plone.org beast?
plone.org only slows down when the americans are awake and start doing
weird things.
can't we block them? ;)
I just did this and plone.org was
Florian Schulze wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:03:03 +0100, Balazs Ree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Framework Team,
we submitted the following plip:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/215
We suggest to use the following new kss package versions for Plone 3.1:
kss.core
New
On 13 dec 2007, at 08:41, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Tom Lazar wrote:
On 11.12.2007, at 13:35, Laurence Rowe wrote:
I'd like to see the following for 3.1:
#210: Improve UI support for objects on multiple workflows
DCWorkflow allows for a chain of workflows to be specified for a
type.
please
Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
On 13 dec 2007, at 08:41, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Tom Lazar wrote:
On 11.12.2007, at 13:35, Laurence Rowe wrote:
I'd like to see the following for 3.1:
#210: Improve UI support for objects on multiple workflows
DCWorkflow allows for a chain of workflows to be
On 13 dec 2007, at 12:51, Laurence Rowe wrote:
Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
I truely think that this isn't as trivial as it may seem. Is it
only a UI issue? I know plone relies on several locations for the
review_state attribute. What if an object has several states (which
is possible if
now that i've understood what it's about:
+1 from me, too ;-)
thanks raphael!
cheers,
tom
On 13.12.2007, at 08:41, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Tom Lazar wrote:
On 11.12.2007, at 13:35, Laurence Rowe wrote:
I'd like to see the following for 3.1:
#210: Improve UI support for objects on multiple
On 12 dec 2007, at 00:03, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
I'd like to see the following for 3.1:
#214: Merge of CMFPlacefulWorkflow into CMFPlone/WorkflowTool
CMFPlacefulWorkflow is now mature enough to be merge into the
workflow tool:
* since two major version there's no critical bug on it
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
imho, we should only assign them when they've been accepted. that
is unless there's something like a tentative state.
there is. 'being discussed', actually.
that's something else, though. the plips might very well stay in that
state even
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
there is no feature to add _pending_ plips, though, and imho that's
quite different than adding accepted plips.
i've added them in an additional section now, abusing the Release
Notes section a bit.
so, all in all i'm -1 for adding them
hi all,
as a member of the framework team i'd like to remind you that the
deadline for submitting PLIPs for Plone 3.1 is tomorrow. any PLIPs
that are not submitted by midnight tomorrow night cannot be considered
for inclusion into the next release, so better hurry up if you still
want
On 13.12.2007, at 13:33, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
so, all in all i'm -1 for adding them right away.
sure, no problem. after the deadline is just fine, too. (and much
simpler in this case)
___
Framework-Team mailing list
On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
as a member of the framework team i'd like to remind you that the
deadline for submitting PLIPs for Plone 3.1 is tomorrow.
for your convenience, i've just added a calendar containing the 3.1
timeline at
Hi,
I've submitted two PLIPs for Plone 3.1 --
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/205
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/207
Both would be minor changes to allow more flexibility with registering portlet
managers and portlet types. PLIP #205 allows assigning portlet types to multiple
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 12.12.2007, at 18:27, Florian Schulze wrote:
This is the other PLIP I want to propose besides #213. Martijn did
all the hard work for it already.
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/212
+1
unfortunately, i haven't worked with jQuery
Florian Schulze wrote:
Hi!
I propose the following PLIP:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/213
It's a very small one, but with a small risk, so I think this should
go the proper PLIP way. The implementation just needs to be
backported, which means removing a few lines and using the
On Dec 13, 2007 5:06 PM, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please consider PLIP #209:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/209
for Plone 3.1 The proposal is to provide a version of the Unified
Installer that builds the base Python, but then uses buildout for the
final steps. The
George Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One motivation behind #207 is that with the current registration proceudre,
some portlets such as the Calendar will be available in every new portlet
column. An alternative way to handle this issue is by using PLIP to #205
register portlets like the
On Dec 2, 2007 6:19 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/184 - Ship additional portlets
This is actually raised by Jon Stahl, but I've been involved in the
implementation of the portlets he's talking about (collection, static
text, document
On Dec 12, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
Wichert Akkerman a écrit :
Previously Encolpe Degoute wrote:
#196: GroupUserFolder removing
There were and there are a lot of critical UI bugs around
GroupUserFolder by PlonePAS. Because of these, several Plone
release had
to be delayed.
On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
#214: Merge of CMFPlacefulWorkflow into CMFPlone/WorkflowTool
CMFPlacefulWorkflow is now mature enough to be merge into the
workflow tool:
hmm, just to make sure, is this about merging the entire product into
plone's workflow tool or
On Dec 12, 2007 11:02 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps each member could then add his vote to each plip's progress log?
How about putting your vote in a comment? That'd lower the chances of
conflicts as well as make it easy to see the votes.
--
Martijn Pieters
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:41 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 12.12.2007, at 18:45, Raphael Ritz wrote:
In terms of ZCML overrides I think we shouldn't do that
as there can always only be one override for a specific
component at most (please correct me if I'm wrong).
well, depending on the implementation
On Dec 13, 2007 11:07 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:02 PM, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps each member could then add his vote to each plip's progress log?
How about putting your vote in a comment? That'd lower the chances of
conflicts as well as
26 matches
Mail list logo
