On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
oops, i only realized raphael had already looked at 212 in the
middle of writing down that list. so actually it should have read
"#187 and #215 need to be reviewed for a second time, and #202 and
#212 should probably also see another roun
On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 18.02.2008, at 13:52, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
I did look through the review notes of PLIPs I didn't vote on, and
agreed with the reviewers remarks. I therefor hereby cast my vote
to echo the l
On 18 feb 2008, at 15:42, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
We could either:
- Display the 'contents' of a 'smart folder' and allow for
downloading them. The problem might be that since they are not
directly contained inside that 'smart folder', maybe some WebDAV
clients will complain that the URLs for
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Helge Tesdal wrote:
[..]
How about always keeping half or a third of the previous team on the
next team. Unless we're doing that already. :)
I like that idea. Currently I am the only one who continued
from the previous team and our process also changed
somewhat.
This is
On Feb 18, 2008 11:27 AM, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sidnei,
>
> first of all thanks for your prompt reply!
Thank you for reviewing!
> >> (ii) Folders: When copying over (downloading) the default news folder I
> >> get a series of error messages from the aggregator topic's crite
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hi Raphael,
Hi Sidnei,
first of all thanks for your prompt reply!
While the points you raised are valid, I don't see anything that
disqualifies this PLIP. More below.
I'm also going to comment inline below ...
Your points will certainly be considered for pos
Helge Tesdal wrote:
[..]
How about always keeping half or a third of the previous team on the
next team. Unless we're doing that already. :)
I like that idea. Currently I am the only one who continued
from the previous team and our process also changed
somewhat.
Raphael
--
___
Hi Raphael,
While the points you raised are valid, I don't see anything that
disqualifies this PLIP. More below.
Your points will certainly be considered for possible improvements
after the PLIP is merged. In fact, some of them are already on my
TODO.
On Feb 18, 2008 5:09 AM, Raphael Ritz <[EMAI
On 18. feb. 2008, at 13:41, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 18.02.2008, at 11:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the
process. I
+1 me, too. i also want to definitley stay on for 3.2, as well,
which will then have a much more streamlined process.
How abo
On 18.02.2008, at 13:52, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
I haven't had an internet connection since Sunday morning, so I
haven't been able to give my framework vote. I am now standing
outside leeching some neighbour's wifi as I await my ADSL
conne
On Feb 18, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
I only want to reinforce that we should not only ship with the two new
packages but also start using them right away. At least for security
and administration related things like:
fyi, since raphael cross-posted this to trac, i've replied there
On Feb 18, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
I haven't had an internet connection since Sunday morning, so I
haven't been able to give my framework vote. I am now standing
outside leeching some neighbour's wifi as I await my ADSL connection
today. My apologies!
oh my, hopefully it's
On Feb 18, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
So, yes, I could certainly do click-tests. Maybe my reluctance so
far was because if me not being able to foresee in which plips I can
be of any help regarding this.
i would have thought you know plone well enough to tell which parts it
On 18.02.2008, at 11:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Thanks Danny,
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the process. I
think right now we need to focus on finishing the release, but we
should definitely capture the lessons learned afterwards and write up
a clearer process, includin
Thanks Danny,
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the process. I
think right now we need to focus on finishing the release, but we
should definitely capture the lessons learned afterwards and write up
a clearer process, including some guidance on appropriate tools.
Matt Bowen
Hello again,
I have nothing to add to Andi's excellent review.
I only want to reinforce that we should not only ship with the two new
packages but also start using them right away. At least for security
and administration related things like:
the personalize_form, password_form, ownership_form,
I haven't had an internet connection since Sunday morning, so I
haven't been able to give my framework vote. I am now standing outside
leeching some neighbour's wifi as I await my ADSL connection today. My
apologies!
I did look through the review notes of PLIPs I didn't vote on, and
agree
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:21:18 -0800, Tom Lazar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i downloaded this and everything worked fine from then on. i created a
zeo setup with its own python and libjpeg(!). this is great stuff. i
shall be using this for my own client work from now on
Another happy custome
Hi folks,
I have been thinking (yes, I try that occasionally) and I must say
that we really need some sort of better tooling for the entire review
process. It is all too scattered if you ask me. I really don't know
where I have to find what I need to know for reviewing. Plone.org,
track,
On 18.02.2008, at 08:05, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Tom Lazar wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
sorry for the delay, i went out with hannosch and lurker
yesterday evening, instead of finishing my last review ;-)
way to go.
On 18.02.2008, at 00:20, Steve McMahon wrote:
Tom,
The obvious just occurred to me: I'll be you're trying this from an
SVN checkout.
obvious to you (well, and everybody else, so it seems...)
you see, that tidbit isn't mentioned in the README that's part of the
svn nor at the actual plip[1]
On 18 feb 2008, at 01:28, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 16, 2008, at 8:52 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
As you guys know I'm here to review plips when it requires UI
attention. So I did 201 (and still working on that next week). As
far as I can tell there aren't other plips that need that at
Hi,
here my current take on this PLIP:
tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients.
First, my overall impression: I'm somewhat at a loss here as I don't know
what to expect and therefore I don't know what to recommend. :-(
While all changes introduced are worthwhile
23 matches
Mail list logo
