On 01.06.2009, at 21:42, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I think we can move all the admin-UI stuff like preference screens,
folder_copy, object_rename and author pages and the like from CMFPlone
to browser views in Plone 4, as these tend not to be customized that
often.
+1
also, those views
On 13.05.2009, at 01:23, Steve McMahon wrote:
By my reading, here is the list of those willing to participate in a
Plone 4 framework team:
Raphael R.
Ross P.
Matthew W.
David G.
Calvin H.P.
Alec M.
Erik R,
Laurence R.
[...]
If you'd like your name added, or removed, please put in a message
for the record, i think this is a great idea.
this will also take some weight off of the 4release, since some of its
low-risk components will have had some real-world usage by then.
also, it should make migrations from 3.x to 4.x easier, i could imagine.
i'm also more than fine with eric as
On 08.04.2009, at 11:02, Graham Perrin wrote:
A question for FWT:
* instinctively, where/when on Plone roadmap do you envisage PLIP 187?
given that 3.3 is in rc state, 3.4 will be the earliest possible
release.
it would be great, if this work would be picked up and completed.
i'm
On 07.03.2009, at 14:38, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Jan 18, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Ricardo Alves wrote:
- Change the view name to ics_view, which is the same name used
for a single event. I find the current name (calendar.ics) a bit
confusing, because I would expect it to be the downloaded file's
On 12.02.2009, at 13:19, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[...] i did notice that test (which is why i added almost in
almost none of the changes are actually tested ;)), but found
that one was far from enough. anyway, tom will make sure there are
thanks, calvin!
i'll take a look at it ASAP, which probably will mean saturday,
though...
also thanks for the changeset url, that kind of stuff is really
helpful for reviewers (*hint* *hint* to other list members ;-)
cheers,
tom
On 10.02.2009, at 06:55, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote:
absolutely fine by me.
it would be great, though, if you could deliver the final version
before wednesday, then i could review it on the last day of the
berlinale-sprint here, after that i will be really busy with catching
up on stuff.
cheers,
tom
On 08.02.2009, at 07:24, Calvin
thanks steve, for the summary report!
there's only one thing i'd like to point out (or rather make
explicit), namely, that:
On 04.02.2009, at 17:48, Steve McMahon wrote:
[...]
PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot
Review Complete: -2
does not mean, that it is flat out
i have updated my review after the recent changes:
--snip--
Second review after fixes (2009-02-02)
--
After fixes by Wichert and Danny the picture looks much prettier :-)
* All but two tests passed. One is explicitely related to another
ticket and
On 30.01.2009, at 21:56, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
FYI i have completed my two remaining reviews and have additionally
reviewed #243 which was without a review.
I've fixed the problems you saw with #243.
i've updated my local buildout and the the site works fine
FYI i have completed my two remaining reviews and have additionally
reviewed #243 which was without a review.
there are still outstanding reviews from raphael, witsch and mj (or
have they perhaps not updated the pliptallies page[1]?) and IMO #243
would also warrant a UI review!
i have
On 23.01.2009, at 10:07, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
We are not almost a week into the two review period, and at this point
two out of the required 22 reviews have been done, two PLIPs have not
been assigned a second reviewer and none of PLIPs have received UI
feedback. That lack of progress has me
thanks wichert for your reminder and andi and raphael for your quick
replies.
i've taken this thread as opportunity to summarize the plips and who
(so far) has taken on which review. i've included andi's and raphael's
and added mine.
since danny won't be able to do technical evaluations
On 13.01.2009, at 00:14, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The question now is how we deal with the release. We could:
- Add Products.NuPlone as a dependency of the Plone egg. This would
mean 'Plone' always comes with NuPlone, but there's no reason overt
for
the dependency.
On 04.01.2009, at 04:06, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
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
On 27.12.2008, at 23:28, Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0800, Ross Patterson
m...@rpatterson.net wrote:
One way to keep these cross-checks lightweight might be to start
with a
statement of impact. There are code changes, for example, that
have no
UI impact. In such
On 18.12.2008, at 11:21, Martin Aspeli wrote:
In particular, one of the things we'd discussed and would like to see
more of, is a consultative approach where the framework team reviewer
asks for review from people outside the team. Anyone who is motivated
to contribute opinions will be heartily
On 18.12.2008, at 11:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[...] things
like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the
process,
absolutely
and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the
group which makes decisions based on those factors.
i think that conclusion is
my question is: how can the fwt decide this question if the key issue
is the available man power and willingness to perform the actual
support for a particular version.
we can decide to support 2.5 but that alone doesn't make it so.
personally, alec's statement would be enough for me to
On 11.11.2008, at 08:54, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I feel that I know Plone and Zope reasonably well by now, and I
arlready
have a passing familiarity with the framework and release processes.
that made me LOL ;-)
SCNR!
and for the record: i'd love to have you on board ;-)
On 07.11.2008, at 17:18, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 7, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
Jon and I can maintain that. Maybe next year we should use a Trac
ticket.
you could also use a trac ticket now (instead of the wiki page).
that would probably make it easier to trac(k)
On 02.11.2008, at 12:17, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 00:31, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got it. How's this?
+1 from me :-)
me, too. the new version does sound a bit more inviting than the old
one, good feedback, martijn!
cheers,
tom
--
Martijn Pieters
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 for PLIP
On 31.10.2008, at 17:13, Steve McMahon wrote:
We should get this out soon. If you'd like changes, please get them in
right away.
like i said, +1 from me ;-)
go steve!
Steve
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Steve McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DRAFT Call for Plone 4.x Framework Team
thanks for the draft, steve!
i wouldn't change anything, but unless my cold is still clogging up my
brain too much, it doesn't seem to state the number of members the
team will have, which might be worth mentioning to applicants.
so perhaps we could stick that in there somewhere?
cheers,
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:20 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
Well, I am all in favor of having the UI fixed. Perhaps some of the
kss boys can do this. You need to have a hover event that shows a
button next to the widget (button can styles using css into a pencil
or something) and the click
oops, this one slipped under my radar yesterday (as evidenced my
steve's tally sheet). so for the record:
+1 ;-)
cheers,
tom
On Oct 26, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 23:59, Maurits van Rees
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose plip 197 for Plone 3.3. Or
steve,
here's the tally of my remaining plips:
126 +1
228 +1
236 -1
238 +1
239 +1
240 +1
241 +1
242 -1
243 +1
244 -1
247 +1
i've posted the votes and their motivations at the plips, but not on
the list.
cheers,
tom
On 28.10.2008, at 11:21, Tom Lazar wrote:
yes, sorry for holding things
On 28.10.2008, at 11:53, Ricardo Alves wrote:
Hi framework team,
I'm sorry I didnt' comment on the previous discussion about PLIP
#244, but I wasn't subscribing this list. Anyway, I'd like to
comment on some of the objections already posted in the PLIP page.
About the usefulness of
On 28.10.2008, at 13:03, Alan Runyan wrote:
+1 to Hanno/Martin being Plone 4 release manager/communicator
same here!
tom
--
Alan Runyan
Enfold Systems, Inc.
http://www.enfoldsystems.com/
phone: +1.713.942.2377x111
fax: +1.832.201.8856
___
having looked at the diff (and having witnessed its creation on the
plane ;-) i'd hereby like to +1 the plip, as well as the
implementation. it's a small, useful enhancement and i would like to
keep it small. let's keep refactoring ATCT for another day and plip ;-)
cheers,
tom
On
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
restricting on the
+1 from me
The way I understand the proposed changes they are not breaking
backwards compatibility, but simply make it easier to achieve already
existing functionality. also +1 on the idea of making portlet
assignments browser layer dependant. that's a feature i often find a
need for.
On 17.10.2008, at 00:39, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I used to think that way, I'm not so sure anymore. Speaking to
people about this over the past few months, I've come to realise
that our model of thinking that the site root is the parent of all
content from which things like portlets can
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote:
I'll take that as a nomination for Fado. Fado it is!
Shall we aim for 7pm?
well, there's the dinner meeting at 6pm at the ethipian restaurant[1]
and for 8pm at fados.
my personal plan was to meet folks at 6pm at the restaurant (Meskerem
for monday: Monday, October 6th, 6pm, Ethiopian dinner
at Meskerem 2434 18th St NW.
so, see y'all there then!
cheers,
tom
On 6 okt 2008, at 11:36, Tom Lazar wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote:
I'll take that as a nomination for Fado. Fado it is!
Shall we aim for 7pm
On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
I would like to propose PLIP #187 for Plone 3.3.
feature wise i think we all agree that it's a very desirable feature.
IMHO i think it's a perfect match for 3.3 as it represents a backend
improvement that doesn't affect API or UI.
so i'm
if any of my previous conferences and sprints are an indicator, i just
*know* that i won't be doing any actual fwt review work while in DC.
but that's not important. review work is 'fleissarbeit' to use a nice
german term here and can easily be done alone, whenever one can find
some time.
On 12.09.2008, at 10:22, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jon Stahl wrote:
I'd love to join you all, if you're willing to let an interested
bystander horn in. ;-)
please do! :)
absolutely!
andi
--
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
just for the record: the way i recall things, all current members
pretty much agreed from the start to follow up until 3.2. now it
seems, that that, which was originally (albeit vaguely) planned for
3.2 will be split up into 3.2 and 3.3.
i'm certainly happy to serve on the board until 3.3
+1 from me, too.
i'm wondering though, if there could be a more elegant solution to the
SSL issue. i.e rather than requiring two registry entries with their
own https-conditions, why not make that decision at render time i.e.
in the template? (i.e. Products/ResourceRegistries/www/
hi wiggy et. al.!
i'll be on vacation (and entirely offline!) from july 26th through to
august 11th.
other than that i will try my best to help get 3.2 out the door...
bring it on!
;-)
cheers,
tom
On 29.06.2008, at 21:43, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Can the members of the framework team
On 20.05.2008, at 06:53, Jon Stahl wrote:
I agree that we should have a stronger opinion about this in Plone
4.0. Personally, I lean towards making it pure-metatadat and adding
a lead-in content field.
+1
FWIW, this is exactly what we are doing here for a current (newspaper)
project
On 24.02.2008, at 21:49, George Lee wrote:
Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
for the record: the front-page issue mentioned by wiggy did *not*
occur in my testing of the bundle itself, which suggests that it is
perhaps caused by some side-effect of previous merges. and certainly
outside
On 27.02.2008, at 17:43, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Graham Perrin wrote:
On 27 Feb 2008, at 10:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this lack of general knowledge, I didn't (don't) know ...
My apologies! I just noticed
http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7732#comment:2
as a member of the framework team (and as somebody who co-reviewed
sidnei's bundle) i feel the need to speak up.
sidnei, i understand your frustration but please consider the following:
* your bundle was one of the most complex ones submitted (certainly
the one with the largest impact)
*
On 20.02.2008, at 09:35, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Thanks very much for the report Raphael. I'm going to treat this as
the
official recommendatation of the framework team.
and so will i. some of the +3 and +4 would actually need to be
increased by one, namely my own vote, which i chose to
FYI, limi has created a ticket for improving the framework team
process -- but s3kritly, it seems ;-). thanks to raphael for the
pointer, though. perhaps others would like add themselves to the cc:
list:
https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7816
cheers,
tom
maybe i didn't understand you correctly, but i was under the
impression that you had additionally suggestded that the inline
validation should als explicitly *clear* and statusmessages. this
would certainly address the issue you're mentioning below... at least
i think so. *scratches head*
On 20.02.2008, at 16:29, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
FYI, limi has created a ticket for improving the framework team
process -- but s3kritly, it seems ;-).
that's a PSPS focus area ticket, i.e. one of the things identified
at the summit
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote:
Hi all, sorry for the late reply, had a busy day.
Anyway, thanks again Raphael for your wrap up.
On 20 feb 2008, at 15:48, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Now, a variant that we might want to consider is
only to clear (but not to issue the error
.
Steve
On 2/17/08, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi graham, thanks for the hint, however, i had tried that already
myself and it didn't work, either.
sudo sh ./install.sh --target=/opt/zope/instances/209 --
user=tomster --
instance=plip209 zeo
ZEO Cluster Install selected
This install
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,
stumble over the same issues.
tom
On Feb 16, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Graham Perrin wrote:
On 16 Feb 2008, at 11:55, Tom Lazar wrote:
sudo sh install.sh --target=/opt/zope/instances/209 --user=tomster
--instance=plip209 zeo
Where you have
sudo sh install.sh
should that be,
sudo sh ./install.sh
judging by andi's summary and the recent reviews we currently have the
following plips that have only one review (there aren't any left, that
have been submitted and have not been reviewed, so at least we've got
that covered...)
#187: Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV
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 work (despite
i just realized, that steve might not get notifications from trac, so
i hereby post my previous comment:
after checking out :
and issueing the following command:
sudo sh install.sh --target=/opt/zope/instances/209 --user=tomster --
instance=plip209 zeo
i get the following output:
ZEO
just FYI since the review deadline is *today*, as of now i have
reviewed and submitted the following plips:
#195: Support product dependencies
#212: Use jQuery Javascript Library
#213: Prepare for better Syndication
#215: Include new KSS versions
the
the scope of the 3.1 release (polishes
under the hood)
On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
a big 'thank you' from me, too. i think the changes you mentioned
are well worth including in 3.1 and i will definitely review this
plip, too (also it fits quite nicely with florian's jquery plip
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:20:40 +0100, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12.02.2008, at 23:41, Florian Schulze wrote:
instead i got the following error in jquery.js (via firebug)
a is not a function
[Break on this error] eval
On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Florian Schulze wrote:
Hi!
The buildout is at
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip213-syndication-preps
Notes are in the buildout. I guess this is the smallest PLIP of all :)
yay, a nice small plip.
it certainly works nicely during my clicktests.
On 15.02.2008, at 11:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
however, i have one problem, which is more svn-kungfoo related than
to
this plip. given the branch you've cut of CMFPlone
https://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/CMFPlone/branches/plip213-syndication-preps
how can i
are we going to go
about this? will we collect explicit votes from andi, martijn and danny?
On 15.02.2008, at 13:41, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote:
I can't reproduce any of these issues. I tried
after looking at the diffs -- :-) -- i'd hereby like to cast my
approval of this plip, as well.
On 19.01.2008, at 18:48, Florian Schulze wrote:
Hi!
The buildout is at
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip213-syndication-preps
Notes are in the buildout. I guess this is the smallest
On 15.02.2008, at 11:56, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote:
I can't reproduce any of these issues. I tried my exisiting buildout
and I made a fresh co of the buildout and ran buildout with the
option to get the newest
On Feb 14, 2008, at 7:19 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Once you post your reviews (here?) what happens? How does the team
arrive at a final yes/no vote? How long does that take?
hmm, i can't decide on these, of course, but i'd still like to try
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
otherwise we should have a complete set of votes by monday night, at
which point i'll post the verdict or rather the recommendations of
the framework team. that should leave enough time for merging and
last-minute polishing before the alpha
hello florian, hello martijn,
i've completed my review and committed the notes in the svn bundle.
i repeated the manual tests with windows IE 6.0, but not with 7.0 as i
didn't have the time to install a new windows VM to install IE 7
without overwriting my existing 6.0 but since everything
hi florian, hello fellow framework team members,
i started reviewing plip 212 on the plane back to berlin and got most
covered. i committed my initial review and post a copy of it here, for
your convenience. i still need to repeat the click tests i've done
with IE 6 and IE 7, as i haven't
, and your message has
been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: February 9, 2008 10:41:34 AM GMT+01:00
To: Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Martijn Pieters
thanks for the post george,
i will definitely be able to meet the feb 16th deadline and hereby
volunteer to additionally pick up any 'leftovers' if
neccessary!
cheers,
tom
On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:30 PM, George Lee wrote:
Hi,
When Andi suggested the February 16 deadline, it seemed to be
://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone
Tom Lazar
http://tomster.org
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
On 01.02.2008, at 12:07, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 11:51 AM, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
talking about weeding out stuff bring another thing to mind. not
exactly related to translations, but i'll throw it in here
updates and fixes would only go into the new package. of course, we'd
leave the old packages around. and, of course, maintaining two
branches just for naming reasons is out of the question.
we can add a note in README.txt or somesuch and make an announcement
at the product's PSC presence.
i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for
the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for
the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is
as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation,
extensibility etc. as it
,
On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for
the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for
the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is
as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness
/
plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone
Tom Lazar
http://tomster.org
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
a big 'thank you' from me, too. i think the changes you mentioned are
well worth including in 3.1 and i will definitely review this plip,
too (also it fits quite nicely with florian's jquery plip)
again, i will try to fit this in before the 12th (but no promises...)
cheers,
tom
On
i, too must apologize for my lack of reviewing so far. i'm busy in a
project and my wife has started working again this month. add two kids
and a pesky tax deadline to the equation and geek time approaches
zero...
andi and i are going to meet this week and will do some review work
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 ;-)
cheers,
tom
p.s. have fun in austria, wish i could be there...
On 20.01.2008, at 02:04, Balazs Ree wrote:
Dear Framework Team,
we
andi, sorry about the silence, i've fallen a bit ill (that noro virus
that's going round here in berlin, watch out...)
i think the idea with trac is excellent and have, in fact, been
harbouring similar ideas in that regard but kept quiet since i knew
that i don't have the resources right
wiggy, you are right. i wasn't wearing my 'user perspective glasses' ;-)
cheers,
tom
On Jan 16, 2008, at 9:05 AM, 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
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 *and* fckeditor prior to formlib, then that's
On 15.01.2008, at 22:43, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
2. Not sure it's the best possible UI to completely hide a
product if a dependency is missing.
[...]
I'ld like some input from Hanno on that. What I did was update the
isInstallable method in the
for the record, i totally second andi's approach re: the deadline
issue. it's a tricky dance, for sure and we must never forget that
we're dealing with voluntarily submitted offers of (often) hard work
which shouldn't be cast aside lightly, but then again, we do need a
timetable in order
On 21.12.2007, at 10:21, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi guys,
I have two, somewhat related questions:
- For pretty much all of my PLIPs, I'll be changing one package
only. I suspect many Plone 3.1 PLIPs will be the same. I can
obviously create a buildout (copying
On 14.12.2007, at 21:18, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I want to propose PLIP 220: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/
220
+1
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things
simple.
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 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 12.12.2007, at 18:45, Raphael Ritz wrote:
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
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 explain. does chaining mean, that an object/type can have
multiple
On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
... there's another kind of portlet which we can provide (ship with
or
not, up to you guys) - a referenced content portlet. Here, you
search
(using an UberSelectionWidget) for a Page that's then rendered as
hi everybody,
here's my feedback on the plips submitted by martin.
On Dec 2, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Martin Aspeli 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
On 03.12.2007, at 23:12, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have prepared a review bundle for PLIP 195:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip195-dependencies
There were a couple of bugs related to handling of export steps in
GenericSetup. Those have been
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.
cheers,
tom
On Dec 3, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi team,
hi martin,
I'm
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
sounds great to me, esp after having to manually install eight or
so packages for every new test site in the correct order for far
too long... :) so, i'm +1 for accepting the PLIP.
On 07.06.2007, at 02:18, Martin Aspeli wrote:
This is a bit late in the game, but I'd like to offer for
consideration whether we should move footer.pt and colophon.pt to
viewlets?
Why?
Because custom skins very often want to hide these. With the
(incredibly cool) new viewlet manager
On 21.05.2007, at 23:57, Martin Aspeli wrote:
whit wrote:
I would say this point you are at wiggy's mercy.
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'
On Mar 17, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Thierry Benita wrote:
What do you think of this idea ? Do you think that it is
possible/affordable ?
+ 100 and thanks for the nice writeup, i think this initiative comes
at a very good time, because on the one hand we definitely need to
lighten the load of
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
