On 2/26/11 9:22 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Alec Mitchellale...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddyele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document:
Timo Stollenwerk wrote:
Hi,
Elizabeth came across a problem with p.a.discussion during her PLIP
review: Authenticated users are currently not able to post a comment,
they need the Member role to do so.
Do we also want authenticated users to be able to post comments? Shall
we just check for
On 10/5/10 9:46 PM, Geir Bækholt wrote:
The Plone 3 series has run for a longer time than anticipated, but there
is still a demand for new releases.
Our awesome release manager, Wichert, has, after a long series of
successful releases, stated that he unfortunately doesn't have the time
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
plone.app.calendar is even more misleading since plone.app.event
provides only the event core implementation but not calendar
functionality (or?). I think plone.app.event is fine since Plone
developers know of ATEvent and
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Alexander Limi l...@plone.org wrote:
Do we expect Plone 4.1 / Zope 2.13 to be using Python 2.7 by default? (makes
sense to me, but not sure if it has other implications that I'm unaware of)
See
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[..]
While I would like to see Python 2.7 compatibility in a later Plone
4.x release, I would be uncomfortable requiring it during the 4.x line
without very good reason
I don't think anyone suggested *requiring* it
still it would be nice to *support* it - at least
in the
David Glick wrote:
[..]
If I recall, the main risks are that the migration may take a long
time, and that the admin may not have properly configured blob-storage
in their buildout. The migration itself is pretty well-tested, at
least under Plone 3 -- Groundwire has migrated dozens of
Jon Stahl wrote:
Hi FWT!
Hi Jon,
thanks for posting this!
For now just one comment from my side:
[..]
- The apache-style buildout.cfg file is inherently intimidating to
new site developers. At first, they just want any easy way to install
add-on products. We used to have that -- just
Hi,
responding to our comments Duco has just broken
out the user registration policy part from PLIP #9310
into #9347. So we have now
http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9310
User registration process more flexible
only covering flexible member data and
http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9347
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Steve McMahon wrote:
All the 4.0 PLIPs now have
plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org
mailto:plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org in
the CC list.
If you want to subscribe, visit:
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories
Most were added in the last few minutes, so
Calvin Hendryx-Parker 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 about the
rest?
Sould be OK on my side as
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope
2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible.
So that means Zope 2.12 instead, right?
Do we have an estimate of what that implies on our side?
Generally speaking, I'm a bit
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 05:09:07 -0700, Martin Aspeli
[..]
We'd also need to find a way to not break all existing themes.
It will break (ie. slightly change) themes that reuse parts of the
original Plone CSS as part of their theme. Luckily, the fix is easy: make a
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some
people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the
current stable 3.x releases and the future.
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5
[Do we really need to discuss this on three lists?]
Martin Aspeli wrote:
JoAnna Springsteen wrote:
The idea is also to catch up with our platforms (Zope 2, Zope 3, CMF) as
we're starting to look a bit out of date on Zope 2.10 + Zope 3.3 + CMF 2.1.
What's the significance of 3.5? Why can't
Graham Perrin wrote:
[..]
1. Please, for test purposes, can anyone provide a well populated
folder of events?
2. If not Calendaring + p4a.plonecalendar then can we suggest any
other route to .ics import?
Hi Graham,
thanks for testing this.
Please note that this PLIP isn't about
Summary of reviews for Plone 3.3 as of 2009-02-15
=
In short: all submitted PLIPs are ready for merging
That's really great and once more thanks to all who contributed!
Specifically, we were dealing with the following:
PLIP 126 - links
see the following lists 2/14 as the final deadline on the schedule:
http://plone.org/support/forums/announcements#nabble-td1490066
Thanks!
Andrew
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Raphael Ritz
r.r...@biologie.hu-berlin.de mailto:r.r...@biologie.hu-berlin.de
wrote:
Summary of reviews
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
hi,
i've just had a look at the updates for all the PLIPs i originally
reviewed and sent some comments. i won't be available for any further
discussion as well as the ultimate counting etc, though, as we're
leaving for vacation tomorrow. i'd appreciate if someone
Steve McMahon wrote:
This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review
status as of Saturday:
Thanks for this Steve!
I'll take the liberty to update this as we move on.
Raphael
*Reviews Complete
*
Accepted: 197, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241,
and now 243 and 246 as well
Andrew Burkhalter wrote:
snip
[..]
Just for the record, this was broken for a brief time on our branch
due to some jostling around of language, but was resolved in the
following changeset:
http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24272
Yup. confirmed.
Sorry, but obviously I had gotten this
David Glick wrote:
PLIP 126 (Link type should automatically redirect when accessed
directly) has been implemented. You can get the review buildout from:
http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip126-link-redirects
I'm going to paste the contents
of
Erik Rose wrote:
I actually first implemented it exactly that way (even called it
IRefreshableLockable), then wondered if the complexity was worth it.
I can go either way, but would like to hear some other opinions of
best practice in a case like this.
For what a non-3.x-FWT opinion is
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[..]
personally i think it'd be stupid to not consider changes that were
ready for a while now. i mean, yes technically you missed the
deadline, but to me i makes a subtle difference if you the code isn't
quite ready yet or if only the notification mail went missing —
David Glick wrote:
[..]
Hey, just wanted to note that Andrew and I investigated this,
discovered it was due to a previously existing bug in the
unlockOnFormUnload.js script, and implemented a fix in the branch for
PLIP #240. In the process we also discovered a related bug which
results in
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
this is a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate
from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly
need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own
but more of a clearing
Tom Lazar wrote:
On 20.11.2008, at 09:47, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
It looks to me like we're getting a pretty good list of nominations.
yes, very good! :)
Shall we close nominations in a week? I can send deadline
announcements to the lists
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
So I'd like to reinforce Wicherts call for early submissions.
+1. any ideas about how to get developers to actually try to commit
their stuff early? xmas presents or something? :)
Beer ;-)
Raphael
andi
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
danny, raphael, and also steve and jon,
would that work for you? that's to say, realistically, like in being
able to do all necessary reviews etc on time? :)
I hope so.
At least I'll try to plan for it to the extend possible.
What I can say today already, however,
Tom Lazar wrote:
On 03.11.2008, at 10:27, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I've been told the framework team wants to be involved with setting
timeframes for releases. I want to propose to take this one step further
during the PLIP handling phase: I would like the framework team to
propose a timeline
a quick list of your new votes, it will help me
update the tallies.
Thanks, Steve
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Oct 28, 2008
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
hi team,
afaict PLIP 234[1] was never proposed to the framework team list.
technically we require this in order to consider a PLIP, or at least
we repeatedly asked PLIP authors to announce their PLIPs here so we're
aware of them. seeing that this particular PLIP has
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Steve McMahon wrote:
Here are my 3.3 PLIP tallies as of 5:45 2008-10-28 (UTC). These
include some
unambiguous votes pulled from e-mail messages to the FWT list.
Can this be turned into a result?
i'd say
Alexander Limi wrote:
Hi Framework Team,
On behalf of Andreas Zeidler, I'd like to offer up the following PLIP
for your consideration for Plone 3.3:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/246
It's a pretty trivial PLIP that adds a new view that is capable of
rendering events as an
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
I'd like to propose to accept PLIP 237 - Minor i18n upgrades for Plone
3.3. The full text is at http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/237.
Short version:
Ship PloneLanguageTool 2.1 instead of 2.0 and
PlacelessTranslationService 1.5 instead of 1.4 with Plone 3.3.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I guess I'm the first one. I want to propose PLIP 228 for Plone 3.3.
I feel that removing the removal of the 'Add Item' dropdown in many
places in Plone 3 is a regression in behaviour, and makes adding content
a lot more cumbersome. The PLIP has so far only received
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I want to propose PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default
Motivation
--
I suspect that by now most of us have realized that the current inline editing
behaviour in Plone 3 is not very practical. It has two main problems:
* it is very easily triggered by
Tom Lazar wrote:
thanks stve for the concise write up. this kind of stuff (i.e. putting
consensus into written form) is very important imho. personally, i
think your write up (and the decisions we reached during the meeting)
strike a very good balance between being too formal and thus
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi all,
Ricardo Alves has been working (with me providing some guidance) on
some incremental improvements to plone.app.portlets. We'd like to
propose this for Plone 3.3:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/244
+1 on the topic as such.
But as Wichert and Alex
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
Hi Martin,
I hear you loud and clearly ;-)
Actually I even share all of you concerns.
And I was just about to propose the add-on approach
while reading your message. I would agree that if
we are providing such changes in the 3.x series
site admins should be able to
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm too late for my own deadline, so I have no expectation that the
framework can review this on time time. If you guys have a bit of
spare time I would appreciate it though :)
Hi Wichert,
don't worry too much.
At least I planned to start reviewing only after
the
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
A PLIP from Michael Dunlap and Florian Schulze which is marked as being
propsed in its workflow state but apparently not mailed to this list (I
sense we need a content rule for this stuff..)
after the upgrade to Plone 3 ;-)
(and once the trigger on workflow state
Steve McMahon wrote:
Am I right that Raphael isn't going to be at the conference?
No, unfortunately not (for various reasons
though I'd love to come ...).
Raphael
PS: don't worry too much about the jet lag Steve.
The first evening(s) are easy. It's the third or forth
that are getting tough
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:35:35 -0700, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In your specific case, that'd be for Plone 3.3. Current Plone trunk
will be version 4.0. I'd keep it on the list and not canvas us
directly though.
His point still stands — the team list is
Michael Dunlap wrote:
Hello framework-team!
I have a PLIP ( http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/232) that
details two potential changes to Resource Registries that would allow
for 1) Conditional Comments for CSS Resources, and 2) support for
external resources
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
steve,
that's an excellent idea!
can we do a quick 'show of hands' here on the list, which framework
team meamber will be (if at all) when in DC? like so, perhaps?
| from | til
-
tomster | 6th | 12th
Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
Can the members of the framework team mail me some information on
their availability for the next couple of months? If there are periods
of a week or longer that you know you will not be able to dedicate
enough time to framework team business I'ld like to know so I
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I know I'm still release manager for 3.x. I've been waiting
for the foundation board (in the person of that same limi) to answer
some questions I asked about the release manager stipend.
Tom Lazar wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
[..]
I'd say to just clear the message when it is no longer needed and
indeed show the message if pressing the save button resulst in an
error. That means that no message is shown during inline validation.
If the message
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[..]
even though i just spent another two or so hours reading up and
sorting out tickets, this is still valid. i guess the first task is
pretty much done, or at least the status and assignments[1] of all
tickets should reflect the current status. the counting and
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[..]
PLIP #202: Support inline validation and editing for formlib forms
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203
https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7737
+4 - but there is still some debate about what's the
best way to handle the portal status message. Once this
is
message. That would address the specific
concern I have about inconsistent feedback and
make things jump around a bit less.
Still not sure what's the right thing to do here though
Raphael
just my $0.02,
tom
On 20.02.2008, at 13:28, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[..]
PLIP #202
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[..]
PLIP #216: Template overrides
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/216
https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7750
-4 - never submitted
(Raphael notes: not sure we are on trac here as all
this is about is to include the z3c.jbot package from
Hi Folks,
at Wichert's request and in order to update us all
I've just compiled the following overview. I hope
I didn't forget anything. Feel free to comment on
this as you see fit. I've scanned the tracker and
looked again at some of the PLIP pages but I didn't
dig through the mailing list
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
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,
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
here my current take on this PLIP:
tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients.
First, my overall
(probably the README) would need to be clarified.
On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote:
On 2/14/08, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
(ii) maybe I screwed it up myself but I couldn't specify a
relative path when specifying the target as follows:
Thanks! Fixed in svn
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.
i finished 201 but still couldn't get 209 to
Steve McMahon wrote:
Thanks for the great review and suggestions, Martijn!
I'm pleased to report that the PID problem is taken care of. Nouri
fixed it for zope2instance in:
http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/55898
and for zope2zeoserver in:
Graham Perrin wrote:
[..]
High quality improvements to Plone, and actions from (for example) the
Summit, are to me far more satisfying than a fixed schedule for
upgrading.
Glad you see it this way ;-)
And to add to the general theme (process):
At least in my case it wasn't about lack of
This is about kss inline validation of formlib fields.
Functionally, it works as advertised but there's a
little issue with the feedback to the user as the
portal status message can get out of sync.
For more see
http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/19238
and for the implementation of the
Raphael, 2008-02-12:
nothing to add to Andi's comments; +1 from me as well
On the cosmetic side I'd like to see the following warnings disappear:
/home/ritz/.buildout/zope/Zope-2.10.5-final/lib/python/zope/configuration/fields.py:417:
UserWarning: You did not specify an i18n translation
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
See http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/224 for details.
I absolutely hate to do this since it violates our process and we
already have a large number of PLIPs waiting for review, but I am
proposing this PLIP for Plone 3.1.
Anarchist as I am I have no problem
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[..]
answer the second part we first need to distribute those 16 review.
however, as i don't think anyone would be too happy to go ahead and do
this for you, you should initially each grab at least three of them
yourselves:
* raphael, you've offered to look at
Tom Lazar wrote:
just a quick 'heads up' from me that i have no problem with the delay.
i'd very much like to see new and improved kss in every new version of
plone ;-)
I've also no problem with the delay here.
cheers,
tom
p.s. have fun in austria, wish i could be there...
Indeed, me
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
just a quick 'heads up' from me that i have no problem with the delay.
i'd very much like to see new and improved kss in every new version of
plone ;-)
I sort of agree, but I do want to note that I can not find a reference
of PLIP
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[..]
I've implemented this change and updated the review buildout.
Wichert.
Thanks Wichert!
I just added my (final?) comments to the bundle:
http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip195-dependencies/REVIEW_NOTES.txt
Raphael 2008-01-17:
===
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
(i) I didn't find specific (unit) tests for the new feature
(e.g., installing ProductOne results in ProductTwo being
installed; BrokenProduct being found as non-installable)
Should be trivial to add given what's there already
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
for the record (as a framework team member) i'd like to support martin
on this issue.
the formlib wysiwyg support is a *new* feature, and if it happens to
*not* work for fckeditor, eventhough wysiwg support used to work for
kupu
Hi team mates,
just a quick question regarding how we want to organize the
review:
While the deadline for submission is only next Saturday
(Jan 19) we do already have some PLIP implementations submitted:
http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip195-dependencies
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Ideally, everyone from the team should look at everything but
often this simply doesn't work out so we might want to make sure
we spit the work such that all PLIPs get consideration from at
least two or three team members. Questions or issues arising
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Ho ho ho,
I'd like to officially submit for consideration for Plone 3.1 a bundle
that comprises the following PLIPs (in separate packages):
- PLIP 184 - additional portlets (has a dependency on PLIP 200)
- PLIP 200 - Kupu formlib widget
Hi Martin,
just playing with
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[..]
I agree, but this may just as well be a bug in FCKeditor. Since that's
not part of Plone core, it's a bit hard to account for it (we can't
test every third party product). That said, we do want this release to
be nice on third party products, so we should fix it.
Ricardo Newbery wrote:
Thanks again Sidnei,
[note to framework list: let me know if I should take this discussion
off list]
No problem with me. You might want to consider cross-posting
or moving to plone-devel depending on the audience you want
to reach.
Just my 2 cents,
Raphael
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[..]
Cheers, and merry Christmas :)
Thanks for all your contributions and Merry Christmas,
Raphael
Martin
[1]
http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/optilude-plipathon-184-200-203-204/REVIEW-NOTES.txt
___
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[..]
* Rapahel on #187
please also try to cast those asap. that said, how long do we want to
wait for those missing votes and do we have a plan on how to proceed
if they don't arrive? i'd suggest waiting until midnight tonight at
most, i.e. one day, and then
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
[..]
1. Do we give our votes here via the list or on the
website as comment or both?
i'd prefer them to be on the plip pages themselves. that'll make
counting and accepting plips much easier.
OK, then we need
Hi,
don't know whether this is even submitted for 3.1
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/197
but I agree with Christian that we should not include
a third-party library literally in the Plone core source
distribution.
+1 on this PLIP from me anyways.
Raphael
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Hello again,
while PLIP 192 (Vice Outbound Syndication)
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/192
isn't even submitted to 3.1 (AFAICT) it contains
a point that's worth noting and that might go
into 3.1 IMHO. It's about changing the way the
RSS link is handled. Making
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
Alec Mitchell wrote:
[..]
I will be writing a PLIP shortly which will hopefully make any merging
of CMFPlacefulWorkflow into the workflow tool unnecessary. The idea
is adapter based workflow assignment. By default all IDynamicType
objects would be assigned a workflow chain using an adapter
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[..]
If you draw this up you basically get a matrix of views with a
content-type axis and a tile-type axes. Something like:
| main content | portlet | search result | folderlisting
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[..]
In the spirit of thinking aloud, I think even that is not general
enough. I think the easiest approach will be to use pure Zope 3 and
register these as different views providing different marker interfaces
or something like that. That way, you can tile something
Tom Lazar wrote:
[..]
i've installed the buildout and done some TTW testing in the ZMI and
in the plone control panel: everything worked as expected.
in fact, the only difference in behaviour was that installing
ProductOne did indeed also install ProductTwo, there were none of the
Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
i'll take a look at the plips and check out their bundles (including
wiggy's #195) during the weekend and will report by sunday evenening.
fair enough, but let's make deciding on the acceptance of PLIPs a
higher priority
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have prepared a review bundle for PLIP 195:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip195-dependencies
this is a standard buildout, so you can get everything up and running
using the standard mantra:
svn co
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:59:23 -0800, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see both sides of the coin here, Wichert is correct in insisting on
shorter release cycles, Martin is correct that December is not the
month to do this. I won't have much time to review
Alexander Limi wrote:
[..]
Any objections?
no, not from me - as long as you don't break any code ;-)
Raphael
PS: didn't we have that discussion month ago already?
--Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
Hi guys,
In reference to https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/6501, I *think* it
would be safe and sensible to remove community_workflow and
community_folder_workflow from the standard Plone 3 install, and
re-title the plone_workflow and plone_default_workflow to be
Tom Lazar schrieb:
[..]
FWIW: i like this feature a lot and would be very pleased with its
inclusion in 3.0 final.
judging from my own frustration that i've had so far with five based
views 'messing up' skin layers they were not intended for i think any
possible integration issues will well
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
Hi guys,
Hi Martin,
We've determined that removing plone_workflow won't work - it breaks
too many tests, which make silly, implicit assumptions about the
default workflow.
which is bad testing style then but anyway ... :-(
However, we don't want this to be the
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
[..]
There is a general developer mis-conception that Plone's not *too bad
at* but sometimes we all do it: More options == better.
Could we maybe return to the issue that triggered this discussion,
namely whether or not to bann the smart folder settings from the
Plone
Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
[..]
The last one is a decision that we need to make.
It will take a couple of days for this to settle down, I'm leaving for a
week of snowboarding tomorrow evening, so here is my proposal: we delay
the beta a bit further to Monday, March 19. At that point I'll make a
Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
[..]
Do we really want to update existing sites? They already have their
customized workflows and I don't quite see why we should pollute their
workflow tools with any new ones.
IIRC we discussed this at the Archipelago sprint and at least
at that time there was
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
I general I agree; it's mostly a practical issue here because
the old API for adding workflows to the tool is gone and
I simply don't know whether/how GS supports doing only
parts of an import step (import wf x and y but leave z alone;
don't touch the chains ...) but maybe
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
[..]
I need to look at this in more detail, but we'd need to find a way of
doing it at a lower level. Hell, I'd copy the XML-parsing code and
make it more defensive if necessary. :)
My hope (without looking at the code in detail) was that the logic
that parses the
Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
[..]
Selecting a new team is indeed our last responsibility (besides thinking
about ways to improve the process). We can start doing that now or in a
few weeks. I don't have a strong opinion about this topic.
I agree with Hanno here on all accounts.
Other than
Hi guys,
this is just to let you know that student of mine, Florian Kamm,
is implementing a solution for PLIP 101
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/101
Sortable tables need to be improved, the javascript needs to
be cleaned up and if the table is part of a batch it should
handle
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
Hi guys,
Hi Martin,
so without any further arguments/discussions/justifications/emotions/... I'm
+1 on including AZAX/KSS - which implies
-1 on Bling (sorry Ben)
Raphael
We've meandered, wondered, hued and hawwwed for long enough.
Jon co need to know what the
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
