On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:01:42 -0800, Alec Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got a buildout for the local roles PLIP (208) ready:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip208-localroles
Just a general question here, while I remember it:
When things like this happen, shouldn't
On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Alexander Limi wrote:
Just a general question here, while I remember it:
When things like this happen, shouldn't packages be renamed to
plone.localrole instead of borg.localrole?
hmm, i'm not sure. it would surely lessen confusion, but otoh a lot
of packages
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.
Hi Tom,
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
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 Feb 1, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
-1 to renaming everthing plone.*. When things begin outside Plone
(which we should encourage), then we can't necessarily insist that
they are called plone.* (in fact, we'd probably discourage it if it
wasn't intended to be eventually destined for
On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
updates and fixes would only go into the new package. of course,
we'd leave the old packages around.
right, but actually that's what i meant — it would leave many people
stuck with the old, non-maintained version...
we can add a note in
i think the penalty aspect martin mentions (apart from the effort
involved in renaming, which could be spent easily elsewhere) pretty
much does it for me. i rest my case.
cheers,
tom (who may be vain, but not passionately so ;-)
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
[...] but to 'simulate diversity' by letting our own packages keep
their initial, non-plone name when integrating them into plone core
doesn't strike me as particularly desirable (or straightforward, for
that matter), either.
my point was more
