Re: [Framework-Team] Today's Call (Oct 12, 2010)
On 10/12/10 8:58 AM, Eric Steele wrote: We have a call scheduled for today. Since we've had all of one new review in the past two weeks, is it still worthwhile for us to get together to talk? Do we have any updates to the PLIPs we've already cast votes for to discuss? I think we should postpone the call until we have more to discuss. Sounds sensible. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Upcoming final PLIP deadline
Hello everyone, We are fast approaching the final PLIP deadline for Plone 4.1, this is your last chance to get a proposal in before the process starts again for Plone 4.2. The framework team has already considered many PLIPs, including all those submitted by the earlier deadline for infrastructure changes. We are currently expecting to approve 24 proposals but the list isn't finalised yet, PLIPs submitted this weekend will still be considered. If you have an idea for improving Plone that you want to champion please log in to https://dev.plone.org/plone/newticket using your Plone.org credentials and submit your proposal before midnight on Monday. Matthew ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Our next meeting – PLI P-a-thon part 1
On 2010-08-12, at 2042, Eric Steele wrote: We've got 30 PLIPs in for 4.1 already (http://dev.plone.org/plone/report/24), so it's time to get together and start talking. Can I assume that next Tuesday at 14:00 UTC will work, or should I set up another Doodle thing? That's going to be difficult for me this time (and very much sub-optimal in general), but I can make it. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Our next meeting – PLIP- a-thon part 1
On 2010-08-16, at 1345, Laurence Rowe wrote: Note the later email: Sorry, I meant the later one, just quoted the wrong thing. Personally I'd like it 2 hours earlier, but 8pm CEST (1800 zulu) is ok. Matthew ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Call for PLIPs for Plone 4.1
Hello everyone, As I'm sure many of you know, the Plone 4.x framework team has been set up and we had our first meeting on Tuesday. There we decided to open the call for PLIPs this week, with a deadline of the 30th August 2010. However, if you are considering submitting an PLIP that is mostly deep infrastructure rather than user-facing we would ask you to please submit it by the 9th of August, to ensure we have sufficient time to give it the thought it deserves. By submitting a PLIP you are effectively saying that you will be responsible for ensuring it gets implemented should the proposal be approved, please do not submit a PLIP if you cannot commit to seeing the process through. We are specifically looking for PLIPs that do not interfere with user upgrades, that is feature additions that will require little or no knowledge of Plone to upgrade an existing site. We are working on point releases here and a smooth upgrade path for our users is of utmost importance. The news announcement is available on plone.org at http://plone.org/news/call-for-proposals-for-plone-4.1 which details the process for submitting PLIPs and links to the template you need to use. Any questions can be directed as a response to this mail or asked on the #plone-framework channel of IRC. Thanks from your 4.x framework team, Matthew ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Sign Up for 4.x Framework Team Nomination Discussion List
On 2010-06-15, at 0021, Steve McMahon wrote: I have created a new mailing list, framewor...@lists.plone.org for discussion of the nominations for the Plone 4.x Framework Team. I am the initial owner and will facilitate discussion but not vote. What's the process here? I assume it's a free vote regardless of if people are new or willing to return, in which case should those of us already on a FWT and willing to return keep off the list? Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Sign Up for 4.x Framework Team Nomination Discussion List
On 2010-06-15, at 0039, David Glick wrote: It is open to folks who 1) have not been nominated That'll teach me not to respond to emails after midnight... Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Beta 1 is (essentially) out! FWT, your job is done.
On 2010-03-09, at 0250, Eric Steele wrote: So... now that those bums are out the door, how do we go about appointing a 4.x team for me to abuse? Well, on a more general note, I think we need a bit better separation between the 4.x and 5.x teams to avoid conflicts between the needs of 4.x and 5.0. I'm not sure the best way to do that, however, as I'm excited by both releases. I honestly couldn't say if I'd prefer to be part of the 4.x team or the 5.0 team if I could only pick one. Matthew ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] FWT, Let's meet up
On 2009-10-28, at 1858, Martijn Pieters wrote: Let's meet at the lobby right now and head out? Where to? I'm at my hotel (the centrum) at the mo. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Status of PLIP 9315 — Ne w theme for Plone 4
• A new design from Iain (screenshot) that I have implemented as a static HTML version on top of the Plone markup (with the main_template changes. Note that the typography and pull-down menu will be different — closer to what you see on plone.org right now. Is that the new design for Plone? Last I heard from Matt at netsight (just before he went on holiday) was that it was now only being used as an inspiration. That theme is in the collective as plonetheme.netsightintranet • CSS doesn't use base_properties, but is color-neutral except for a couple of properties (e.g. link color) that are pulled out separately to the top of the CSS file, so they are easy to override, should you need to. No DTML magic. I'm -1 on inclusion, then. DTML magic is good magic and I made it clear it was a condition from my POV. • A theme skeleton — plonetheme.sunburst — that Denys checked in for me while I was flying across the Atlantic. Unfortunately this is just a blank skeleton still, since I can't get Plone running at the moment. How does this relate to zopeskel? Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Meeting tomorrow
Hello all, To confirm, are we meeting at 1800 UTC on #plone-framework tomorrow? Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP deadline overly aggressive?
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, the way I see it is that the timeline is deliberately short as 4.0 is an intermediate release. Trunk is the innovative, new thing, 4.0 is incremental upgrades that go beyond a 3.x release. In fact, the release was almost called 3.5 or similar. I don't know how I feel about this, the period is awfully short, but I'm probably leaning towards short keeps things from getting too ambitious. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP deadline overly aggressive?
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 mentions through. The place for ambitious changes is still trunk and PLIPs against 5. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIPs in Trac
Hi all, I'd like to open a public discussion on where tracs should be. As some of you may know, I'm very much against the PLIPs-in-trac system that has been implemented following out-of-band discussions last year. I think we need to make a proper decision, I'm not sure how that will happen, but if it'll stop me whinging either way. For Plone 4.0 we've put PLIPs on plone.org, this has the following advatanges: - Unique, relatively low number for each PLIP - Custom content type enforces PLIP structure - Workflow matches our process The disadvantage of it being on a different site has been raised, but I don't buy this. How often do you want to look at the bugs and PLIPs for a release at the same time? They have a completely different process. The current crop of PLIPs for 4.0 are very unstructured, only the ones copied verbatim from plone.org have seconders. We're having to bodge workflow by assigning different milestones. It's really suboptimal. Do others agree with me, or do you prefer trac? Despairingly yours, Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Garbage PLIP for 4.0
Hi all, We've had a PLIP that was clearly a feature request, https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9257 I've moved it to a feature request against installers, I hope nobody minds, but it's clearly not a PLIP. Any objections to continue gardening this list? Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies
On 30 May 2009, at 22:23, David Glick wrote: Raphael raised a question about the consequences of backwards- incompatible changes for add-on developers. Switching to a newer Zope and CMF will indeed probably have some consequences. But this is a major version bump of Plone, so I think it's okay if some things change; this is probably our best opportunity to rip out some old cruft. Perhaps the question we should be asking is, What do we want the new features for Plone 5 to be?. I think moving to browser views for default templates would be useful, if not just so it unifies our customisation story. We've got lots of new things that we're all itching to use, but we need to balance that with making the upgrade from 3-4-5 as smooth as possible for our integrators. On the concrete example given, quite high-up on my list of wishlist features for Plone 4 would be ditching portal_skins and having a layer- aware analogue for browser views, with an exporter. TTW editing is sorely missing in 3.x, and I think it's a pain point. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies
On 26 May 2009, at 10:59, Hanno Schlichting wrote: I think someone has to try and see what kind of changes are acutally required to make a current Plone 3.3rc3 run on Zope 2.12 or even better a real client side with a collection of add-ons. I doubt it's very hard, a concerted effort by me and Sidnei at the last Summer of Code summit left us with Plone trunk working on Zope trunk, and that was only a few weeks after the conference. Zope really was where most of the changes needed to be, I do think targeting 4.0 to Zope 2.12 is feasible and proper. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.5
On 5 May 2009, at 12:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote: The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5 that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both refresh some of our technical underpinnings in addition to some more intrusive feature changes we didn't allow ourselves in the 3.x series so far. Why skip 3.4? That Plone 2.5 was a major release was quite nasty, it confused people about what was a major release and what isn't. We've made a commitment to 3.x being stable, I think we should keep to it. Releasing a Plone 3.5 would confuse the matter. However, it would be interesting to open the new features to a wider audience ASAP. I'd be in favour of this if: - It wasn't called Plone 3.x or 4.x (Dunno what though) - We maintained 3.x as officially supported Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
On 5 May 2009, at 13:20, Martin Aspeli wrote: snip Yes, I agree with all of these, and do think they're needed. So, 3.5 is a compromise. The skipping of 3.4 actually helps back the story up. We could try something else, like Plone 2009, but I'm pretty sure we'd regret that in 2010 for one reason or another. And PyPI wouldn't like it. That's true, I am very nervous about the Plone 3.x compatibility becoming =3.0,3.5-dev though - it is a change in policy to what we've previously said and I do think it would catch people out. I had some issues with mails bouncing as I'm subscribed with different addresses to different lists, so, to reiterate, if we keep Plone 3.3 supported and make it clear that there's a significant difference between 3.3 and 3.5, then I'm +0. I'd only be +1 if we could make that explicit in the name. This is not because of the proposal, I'm very much in favour of the proposal in principle, it's just the fact we lose our easy-to-understand compatibility promise by making a decision very much like the one we made in Plone 2.5. Yeah, thanks for helping. :p There may well not be a name that would satisfy me. I can't think of one, you can't think of one, there may just not be one. I think that'd be the case under the two supported versions policy. But that would mean that when 4.0 comes out 3.5 becomes unsupported completely. Is that desirable? I'm not trying to be an arse here Martin, really, I'm just concerned about 3.x users. We've managed to remove a lot of fear from upgrades in the 3.x series, I don't want to lose that. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Scheduling 4.0 FWT Meetings (was: Quick team meeting)
On Mar 13, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: Mr. Wilkes, can you post the link to that scheduling software that you mentioned on the call? We can setup a mock week and basically vote on which days/times work best. Sorry, sent from the wrong address and it didn't get through sharpish, resent now. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Fwd: Doodle: Link for poll Framework Team Meeting
On 13 Mar 2009, at 19:30, Hanno Schlichting wrote: Matthew Wilkes wrote: I've tried to include all the relevant possible times in this, let me know if there's another I should add. I'll be at PyCon in that week and have no idea what my time schedule is going to be. I'll try to join on whatever time others agree. To be clear, that week was chosen as it's around the right time and is after DST starts in Europe so it is repeatable. Please sign up when you're USUALLY available, even if you're not on that particular day. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP Community Imapacts
On 14 Mar 2009, at 00:13, Jon Stahl wrote: East coast is significantly easier for the Europeans, both in travel time and intensity of jetlag. But all is open to discussion. They rallied to CA for the PSPS. :-) To be honest, the travel time isn't a massive factor, it only adds a few hours, going to the US is a commitment regardless of the coast. Also, I can adjust to the timezone to quite a decent margin of error by sleeping on flights, although I'm aware many people find that difficult. For me the only issue is flight costs, as I'm still a student I can only work part time, and that doesn't leave me much spreadin' around money; best case scenario for flight costs leaves the east-coast about $100 cheaper, but often they're a lot closer. So, my criterion is near a large international airport for the getting of cheap flights, rather than blanket east-coast. MAtt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] NuPlone and Plone 3.2
On 3 Jan 2009, at 07:55, Graham Perrin wrote: In partial answer, http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/WheredItGoOnPloneTrunk http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8805 http://dev.plone.org/plone/query?component=NuPlone+Themeorder=iddesc=1 http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/23493 Regards Graham Those are all Plone 4, not 3.2. I'm guessing NuPlone simply wasn't added as to the new Plone distribution after the bundle was abandoned. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: NuPlone and Plone 3.2
(ccing wiggy in as a ping as he requested for such issues in #8839) On 4 Jan 2009, at 03:06, Martin Aspeli wrote: This is actually really bad, and I think it should block the 3.2 full release (i.e. with installers). +1 I think we need to: 1) Get a release of Products.NuPlone that works with 3.2 out to PyPI and dist.plone.org immediately. 2) Update the Plone egg to depend on it in a 3.2.1 release. 3) Base the installers and the release announcement on this version. 3a) Remove existing release announcement from prominent places Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP's for 3.x releases in Trac???
On 25 Dec 2008, at 17:39, Hanno Schlichting wrote: we just decided to move all PLIP's to Trac for Plone 4 and no longer use plone.org/products/plone for it. Incidentally, I missed this, where was it discussed? Are we going to have a new workflow for PLIPs? Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Trac report {24} for Improvement Proposals (PLIPs) for milestone 4 and beyond
On 23 Dec 2008, at 12:50, Graham Perrin wrote: Excellent to see Trac being used in this way. Thanks. Ah, hadn't noticed this thread yet, sorry. If we're going to use Trac for PLIPs I'd say we need the same or similar workflow to what we currently have and have some policy on priorities, to me all PLIPs should be created equal. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIPs for milestone 4 and beyond in Trac: occasional conversion from type 'Feature Request'?
On 23 Dec 2008, at 12:47, Graham Perrin wrote: I assume that in exceptional circumstances (imagine a very well formed Feature Request) a Feature Request (type) in Trac may be converted to a PLIP (type). PLIPs have their own numbering and are currently stored exclusively on plone.org. I'm not sure what advantages managing them in trac would have considering we'd have to migrate old plips or link seperately and reconsider numbering. I'm not sure what I think of this, I think our current system works, but I'd not be adverse to moving to trac if we had a smooth migration plan. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Fwd: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Collecting external input and outside reviews is a nice idea, but things like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the process, and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. I think I'll answer this, as in my initial mail nominating myself you asked about my UI experience: On 5 Nov 2008, at 12:54, Matthew Wilkes wrote: - loves to make sure a user interface is as simple as possible Less so, I'm a terminal junkie. I know what I hate, as it were, for example adding a new user with the manager role in PAS is dire, but I'm more interested in ensuring integrators can easily customise a UI than perfecting the OOTB one. As long as it's usable it's enough for me. Although UI isn't my number one concern, I certainly don't plan on ignoring it. It's our job to do a rounded evaluation of the PLIPs, we'd be negligent if we ignored UI. That doesn't mean we need to be UI experts personally. As you say, there are plenty of people in the community for us to consult, and I know people in real life. My code has to go through usability testing, I don't see why I should put my name to anything that doesn't meet the standards I'm held to. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Nomination
On 5 Nov 2008, at 12:29, Wichert Akkerman wrote: - excels at reading and understanding other people's code Yes, not only do I do regular code reviews at work I have worked as a coursework marker for a masters level university java course. Part of my job is that when I see an interesting package name in the plone commits or on PyPI the first thing I read the source (including readme) and talk to my coworkers about it. - is excellent at reviewing documentation and release notes I am the new editor of the configuration and setup section of plone.org documentation and started the evaluation process that the whole docteam is now using. See http://www.openplans.org/projects/plone-documentation/configuration-and-setup-overview for what I've done so far. I love doctests as examples for plone.* packages but for plone.app.* they generally seem to be less useful. Either way, a readme file that clearly explains how to use the code is vital, imo. - loves to make sure a user interface is as simple as possible Less so, I'm a terminal junkie. I know what I hate, as it were, for example adding a new user with the manager role in PAS is dire, but I'm more interested in ensuring integrators can easily customise a UI than perfecting the OOTB one. As long as it's usable it's enough for me. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Nomination
Well, I'll get the ball rolling on this. I'd be interested in serving on the 4.x team. Although I've not made masses of commits to Plone I do know the internals very well, I think I must have pdbed or read most of it over the years and I'm comfortable with development versions. I think the current team has done a great job in not breaking Plone 3.x as its progressed and I'm keen to see that continue with 4.x (x 0). I'm used to working in a development team for my day job, including code reviews for other programmers, so I don't think there's anything in the job that I won't have some experience with. I get on with pretty much everyone too ;) I'm really not sure what you're looking for in this email, so just reply if there's anything extra you think I should talk about! Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
