[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
On Tue, 05 May 2009 16:57:21 +0200, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu wrote: Hi. To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the proposal in general meets the favor of everyone. The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the release. There seems to be broad support for freeing the current Plone trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the envisioned scope of this proposal instead. If I do not get a strong signal or message otherwise, consider this proposal changed in this regard. Since I finally found out about this and catched up on this thread, I wanted to give my +1 to a Plone 4 with a reduced scope from the current trunk. Regards, Florian Schulze ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
Hanno Schlichting schrieb: Hi. To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the proposal in general meets the favor of everyone. The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the release. There seems to be broad support for freeing the current Plone trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the envisioned scope of this proposal instead. If I do not get a strong signal or message otherwise, consider this proposal changed in this regard. Also +1 for a Plone 4 release. ..Carsten ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
Am Tue, 05 May 2009 16:57:21 +0200 schrieb Hanno Schlichting: Hi. To summarize the feedback from the European time zone, I think that the proposal in general meets the favor of everyone. The controversial issue is the exact version number to use for the release. There seems to be broad support for freeing the current Plone trunk from a version designator and release a 4.0 release with the envisioned scope of this proposal instead. If I do not get a strong signal or message otherwise, consider this proposal changed in this regard. A big +1. Perfect! Thanks Hanno for pushing this forward! Jens -- Jens W. Klein - Klein Partner KEG - BlueDynamics Alliance ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
Andreas Zeidler a...@zitc.de writes: On May 5, 2009, at 10:05 PM, Ross Patterson wrote: BLOBs: Has the backups/repozo story been sufficiently worked out? this will need a good backup story, but it won't be via repozo. repozo was meant to backup a single data.fs, but not your entire zodb. the blob storage will tend to be big and might live on some media with other backup strategies (think SAN or S3). there should be some recipe or something that provides a single script to backup both for the standard use-case of having the blob storage live on the same filesystem, but that shouldn't be repozo. I should clarify my question here. Is there an issue with making sure that the backed up BLOB directory is consistent with a particular backed up state of the Data.fs via repozo. IOW, can we say something like so long as you restore your BLOB directory to a state as it was in the same moment or after the repozo process started then it is guataneed to be consistent? I'm not saying that the above statement is correct cause I don't know. :) I'm just saying we'd need to be able to make some promise about repozo backups of Data.fs and backups of BLOB directory being consistent. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 22:05, Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net wrote: Sorry if I'm resurrecting an already fairly resolved debate. None of the concerns I raise here are enough to vote -1 one calling it 4.0. But if enough people feel as I do here, maybe we should discuss a little further. What about plone 3.9? 3.0.x was very buggy, and I think that has been somewhat saved by the upgrades to 3.1 and 3.2 being so painless. I think it would be, for that reason, a big mistake to introduce bigger changes in 3.X unless we can make sure the upgrade is quite painless and the changes are *very* stable. Yeah, I guess trying to have a release line that can grow is trying to have it both ways. I'm very concerned about the expectations we've been developing about Plone 4 and the impact that will have on perceptions when we say, Yeah, that's plone 5 now or worse yet the even less confidence inducing Yeah, that's plone trunk now. But I guess the right response to that issue is to be more disciplined in our messaging in the future and *not* talk about release numbers before the release process has had a chance to weigh in. IOW, any perceptual/expectation problems we have from this may be our just desserts. :) +1 to calling it 4.0. +1 to constraining ourselves to not include additional disruptive changes in the newly established 4.0 line and thus to only include them in subsequent major versions. +100 to not talking about version 5 until the 5 FWT has actually done enough of it's process to have some formal establishment of expectations. Then I'll just have to buck up and tell people that a better skinning story will *not* being Plone 4 afterall and that I can't tell them it will be in Plone 5 and that somehow they shouldn't be discouraged by that. :( Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
