I've already got Sunday dinner plans, but may be able to alter them if
absolutely necessary.
Alec
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
Friday is the Roadmap Team dinner, so Sunday would work best for me.
Laurence
On 1 November 2011 17:18, Eric Steele
, accessibility and/or
internationalization experience are especially encouraged to apply.
Regards,
Alec Mitchell
Plone Framework Team (2.5, 4.x)
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
Great work!
Agreed! This has the
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net writes:
Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu writes:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
+1,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Geir Bækholt pl...@baekholt.com wrote:
On 20-01-2011 16:57, Eric Steele wrote:
I'd like to get a final consensus on whether or not PLIP 9327 will be
included in 4.1. From discussion last week, several of you wanted to hold
out until we knew whether collections
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
Liz
I agree that the deadline issue isn't a major one, since the release
itself would provide a natural set of deadlines and being pushed to a
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu writes:
I'd like to get a final consensus on whether or not PLIP 9327 will be
included in 4.1. From discussion last week, several of you wanted to
hold out until we knew whether collections
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Craig A. Haynal cah...@psu.edu wrote:
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
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alec,
On 21 September 2010 18:33, Alec Mitchell ale...@gmail.com wrote:
While I agree that it would be worthwhile to promote a canonical space
for discussion of the PLIPs and reviews, and that Trac is probably
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I know we have a process that says reviewers should add their notes in text
files in the review buildout. I think it'd be bad to change the process now,
but for next time around, can I suggest that we use Trac
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alec,
On 19 August 2010 09:52, Alec Mitchell ap...@columbia.edu wrote:
Though I voted against the inclusion of the UUID PLIP on it's own, if
the link-by-uuid PLIP makes good use of it, then it certainly could
Hi Martin,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alec,
On 20 August 2010 00:56, Alec Mitchell ap...@columbia.edu wrote:
I'd like to experiment with making the AT UID() and reference/UID
catalogs use plone.uuid as well. Certainly, that's where I'd
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 August 2010 09:20, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 August 2010 06:47, Geir Bækholt pl...@baekholt.com wrote:
On 18-08-2010 08.07, Martin Aspeli wrote:
• 10778 (Stand-alone UUID)
I
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu writes:
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
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Steve McMahon st...@dcn.org wrote:
Plone 4.0 is on it's way, and the Plone development team is beginning
planning for future releases in the 4.x series. Would you like to help
choose what goes into Plone 4.1, 4.2 ...?
The Plone Framework team is now receiving
I'm in. Any evening or sometime during Friday open space works for me.
Alec
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
For those of you in Budapest, I'd like to try to get together for a bit to
1) just actually meet you face-to-face
2) talk about which sprints we want
to visit the wiki
(http://ploneconf2009.org/program/sprint/budapest-conference-sprint)
and take a look around.
I look forward to seeing everyone in Budapest.
Best Wishes,
Alec Mitchell
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
Following up on the discussion of including these in Plone 4...
The Framework team opinion is that they like them both, and will include
them in Plone 4, but with the reservation that they wished they'd gone
through a full
Owner was there in Plone 3.0. IIRC, it was removed because the name
is confusing, particularly since it is redundant with the object
ownership. Granting the Manager role means giving local ZMI rights
and even the ability to e.g. add a local acl_users and create a little
fiefdom, which may not
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Francesco
Ciriacifrancesco.ciri...@gmail.com wrote:
Il giorno 24/ago/09, alle ore 08:56, Alexander Limi ha scritto:
You're a bit late, seeing as the initial deadline was last week. ;)
Well, I'm trying to follow the framework and developers lists but the only
Hi all,
The SecureMailHost removal PLIP is ready for review.
Alec
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Wichert Akkermanwich...@wiggy.net wrote:
On 8/7/09 12:20 , Ralph Jacobs wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 8/7/09 12:13 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm afraid I also don't buy the lookup mechanism mentioned in the PDF:
you are essentialy creating a persistent
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Glickdavidgl...@onenw.org wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Erik Rose wrote:
Python 2.6, Zope 2.12 (https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8808):
* David ported the migration procedure to GS and moved it into
plone.app.upgrade. Ran a migration from a stock
I concur that the globalize stuff is a serious hack and should be
removed at some point. However, I don't think 4.0 is the right time
to remove it considering the huge impact it will have on 3rd-party
products. If removing it doesn't result in a significant performance
improvement (and
I don't see much upside to renaming the package. On the other hand,
the more core Plone code that's owned by the foundation the better,
IMO. If Rob is willing to do the work to get all contributors to sign
over their contributions, then it's probably worth pursuing.
Alec
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009
competing implementations of the same feature(s) submitted for code
review. It is essential that you open a discussion and work together
to merge your efforts. Please keep the Framework Team apprised of the
results of your discussion by re-submitting a single combined PLIP
ASAP.
Thank you,
Alec Mitchell
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Alexander Limil...@plone.org wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:17:57 -0700, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
* We have 57 PLIPs to evaluate, more than any previous version of Plone
(we're told), with less time than any other major release. #$@!
I will just
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limil...@plone.org wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
- We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1. There's
no reason we can't and shouldn't start planning for that now. So, if
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Martin Aspelioptilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limil...@plone.org wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
- We use this PLIP review cycle
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
Hi.
Where and how to manage PLIP's is both a matter of a defined process
and some software supporting this process.
One of the main driving reasons to move all Plone Core development
related information into Trac,
I'm in agreement that the plone.org system is preferable; however I
think it's probably a little late to change this. It does seem like
the PLIPs submitted so far are mostly unstructured feature requests.
Even the better ones are pretty minimal.
Alec
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Matthew
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Calvin
Hendryx-Parkercal...@sixfeetup.com wrote:
Here is the link we used to start this process:
http://www.doodle.com/ucb3w2fcqieken28
Based on the responses, generally folks are available Monday and Tuesday at
2:00PM US/Eastern time. This works for me, how
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
Folks,
A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by Friday
There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we pare
this down to a list of 7 people?
We currently have responses of:
Is it really that much work to fix the ui for starting an edit? I
think there are a lot of people who like this feature, but are
frustrated by the UI. Disabling it does nothing to fix that though,
it's just another regression to work around what many consider a real
UI bug.
Alec
On Tue, Oct
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
- Create a site wide portlet category for portlets that should show on
all pages (unless blocked). Currently, people have to use contextual
portlets at the root
I'll be in D.C. and would attend the meeting on whichever day it may be held.
Alec
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
steve,
that's an excellent idea!
can we do a quick 'show of hands' here on the
Aspeli,
Geir Baekholt)
#204: Manage content rules using GenericSetup (Martin Aspeli)
#205: Flexibility Associating Portlet Types and Portlet Managers (George
Lee)
#207: Allow Custom Portlet Managers (George Lee)
#208: Adapter-Based Local Role Lookup (Alec Mitchell)
#209: Add
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:29 AM, whit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Graham Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 February 2008 23:46:24 GMT
To: George Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: framework-team@lists.plone.org
I merged PLIPs 208 and 217 tonight. The following changes were made:
* The plip208 branch of borg.localrole was merged into trunk
* borg.localrole was added to the 3.1 branch of ploneout
* A migration and procedural GS import step were added to CMFPlone 3.1
branch, along with tests
* A minor fix
Hi Team,
I've got a buildout for the local roles PLIP (208) ready:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip208-localroles
It includes branches of borg.localrole and a branch of PlonePAS that
installs the borg.localrole plugin in place of the default one. In
the course of my testing and
There are no tests and there's a fatal bug (queryAdapter instead of
queryMultiAdapter, and no interface to adapt to specified). I will of
course be looking at it, at the very least for inspiration, when I
prepare the bundle tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder.
Alec
On Jan 12, 2008 7:27 AM, Alan
On Dec 19, 2007 2:54 PM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 9:42 PM, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you can see from the 3.1 release schedule as set by Wichert, the
framework team has set itself this
Hi framework team members,
A couple more PLIPs to keep you guys busy:
Adapterized local role lookup (borg.localrole):
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/208
Adapterized workflow lookup:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/217
Feedback appreciated.
Alec
On Dec 14, 2007 5:36 AM, Florian Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:37:14 +0100, Alec Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:27 AM, Florian Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Framework Team!
This is the other PLIP I want to propose besides #213
On Dec 14, 2007 7:56 AM, Malthe Borch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so, while i also like the idea, i'm not too sure if plone should ship
with it. i'd agree with martin we should discuss and think this through
a little further. nevertheless, i don't see why the plip wouldn't be
acceptable, so
On Dec 14, 2007 10:12 AM, Florian Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:00:43 +0100, Alec Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 5:36 AM, Florian Schulze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:37:14 +0100, Alec Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 4/3/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some comments on this list, based on current status.
...
- Combine delete confirmation page with integrity checking
(having to say yes/no on two separate pages sucks :)
Needs to happen soon or becomes 3.5 material.
I'm
Franco Carinato, and to a lesser extent Rosario Di Somma, looked at it
a bit during the sprint. I'm not sure how feasible it would be for
them to help get it into a usable state in the near future though. We
really missed spliter at the sprint.
Alec
On 4/3/07, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL
On 3/25/07, Hanno Schlichting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Alexander Limi wrote:
Could we please remove PloneErrorReporting from Plone 3.0?
+1, as the current official maintainer I took the liberty to remove it
from the release and the bundle. One stupid thing less to take care of :)
Hanno,
It's a fundamental HTML form issue. No matter what the name of the
field (e.g. even if it has a ':boolean'), if the checkbox is not
checked then the input is not included in the request (so the value
won't be changed). It may be possible to use a hidden field with a
False value, so that
On 3/10/07, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir Bækholt · Plone Solutions wrote:
On 9. mar. 2007, at 17.22, Laurence Rowe wrote:
I would vote for keeping the base tag anyway, as it would make the
site not break if someone makes a wrong link somewhere.
Another possibility to help
On 3/8/07, whit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Consider some kind of compitability alias mechanism, so that when
people keep using getToolByName(context, 'portal_types') we translate
that to getUtility(ITypesTool), for as long as we need to (but still
warning).
+1... I mean chrissakes..
On 3/7/07, Rocky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 6, 9:05 am, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Rocky Burt wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:52 am, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- TypesTool in CMFCore - adding the threadlocal cache makes that part
close to three times as
As one who compulsively clicks and highlights things while reading
them, I'm very much against single click edit. :-) Then again, ui
decisions shouldn't be made based on the idiosyncrasies of weirdos
like myself.
Alec
___
Framework-Team mailing list
On 1/10/07, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 1/10/07, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote:
--SNIP all the discussion about five.intid--
Instead, why not make a simple addon product (with a simple GS
profile) that installs these dependencies
On 12/10/06, Justizin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/10/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Limi wrote:
Breakdown of document_view shows (same order/units as above):
path: plone_view/globalize 0.232 10 0.0232
path: plone_view/globalize 0.4314 10 0.04314
On 11/14/06, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:14:38 -0800, Martin Aspeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is some portlets BBB stuff for people with main_template
customisations that make globalize do slightly silly things. We could
probably cut that out if we
On 10/5/06, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Alexander Limi wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:53:06 -0700, Wichert Akkerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PLIP 168 - integrate iterate for checkin/checkout/staging
Viewing a locked front page gave an error until the page was
On 9/25/06, Helge Tesdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Overview
===
PLIP168 Iterate provides in-place staging in Plone for improved editing of
published content.
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/168
2. Test setup
=
This was tested with Zope 2.10 from SVN and the review
To say these sites are compromised is a bit extreme. People who
were allowed to create profiles (i.e. this only happens to sites where
anybody can join) could take advantage of a minor XSS vulnerability to
seed google requests. Additionally there was a apparently more common
avenue of attack
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the summary, Raphael,
1. try by any means to support the old behavior (maybe
the fti registering could be done by AT's process_types
instead of CMF's ContentInit (I might actually try that
- time permitting)
2. Switch to using
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As I said, I'm still wary of using GS as the main install mechanism,
even if the quickinstaller can now find them thanks to Hanno. The
uninstall question is still unresolved as far as I can see, in cases
where you need custom
On 9/13/06, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
Previously Alec Mitchell wrote:
It's not possible to start Plone if PIL is not installed currently
(due to the member image fix). PIL is included in all the installers
AFAIK, and is a package in every distro I've
On 9/12/06, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:34:33 -0700, Alec Mitchell
apm13-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We need to make sure that it can be easily disabled in case the
performance overhead of using Sessions is too much for some
applications
On 9/2/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://azax.ree.hu/documentation/development-process-with-kss
From Balazs and Godefroid, many thanks! This is a pretty short document
describing a real-world example of development with KSS.
It's probably good if we all read this and form some
On 9/3/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
Since we need to get going, I thought I'd start with an easy one.
1. Overview
===
PLIP144 - Generalised Next/Previous Navigation, aims to make it easier
to navigate between items in a folder. The typical use case is a folder
On 9/1/06, Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:52:21 -0700, Encolpe Degoute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our team wishes to highlight PLIP 154 as we think it is nearly
implemented by FileSystemStorage + AttachmentField (still SVN).
By the time Plone 3.5 ships, it's
On 8/22/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/117 (AJAX dep)
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/116 (AJAX dep)
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/163 (AJAX dep)
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/124 (AJAX dep)
All of these
On 5/10/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 00:29:17 +0100, Alec Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alec,
I agree completely with everything you're saying. However, I'd add ...
We all agree that there are a lot of great thing we should do, and
need to do
On 4/11/06, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:07:03 +0100, Rob Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
In a way it feels unclean and a bit dangerous if our goal is to lighten
up or even move away from Archetypes. However, it's also a good thing.
On Monday 13 March 2006 09:18, whit wrote:
just to piggy back a bit on this:
I think one consideration that needs to be made is how much you guys
want to start pursuing new style development. By the time Plone 3
ships, CMF 2.0 will have full customization of views(the technology is
not far
71 matches
Mail list logo
