On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:15 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
in contrary to my statement regarding the other reviews, i.e. that
two review ought to do (considering how late we are already), in
this case it should be: the more, the merrier. hence, i'd offer to
do a review as well and i'd suggest
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
Previously Raphael Ritz wrote:
There is one question I have already now: Who feels responsible
for updating the forms that ship with Plone/AT to make use of
this? (or am I missing something?) And don't get me wrong:
I have no problem shipping it even without using it right away
just to make
On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:15 PM, 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.
definitely a
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
At this moment I do not have a review bundle ready; I'm hoping that
someone will beat me to it since I have very little time to work on
it.
OK, so I'll take on the role of beating you to this and I'll
try to sneak in a review during the sprint
how about getting the important ones done for 3.1 and perhaps making
generic support a PLIP for 3.2?
andi
ps: thanks wichert for coming up with those two packages so quickly,
btw!
On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
A few quick comments:
It is only important for the
