Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Now that we have a new framework team it is time to start planning the
> 3.1 release. 3.1 is intended to be a low-risk upgrade which can follow
> the 3.0 release quickly. The release cycle has to be short so we can
> get things out to people. Here is my proposal
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
So by now a number of you have complained that this schedule does not
work very well. So I think it is time for me to mention another reason I
have for setting a short deadline, even if that is not attainable for
most people: at the moment almost all big development is de
On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
+1 for having Martijn Faassen in the framework team.
heh, make the dutch party level with the berlin guys? hmm,
dunno... ;)
being level is not only expressed in numbers ;-)
i know — and i was thinking about mentioning this in my remark, but
On Nov 22, 2007 9:40 AM, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KSS is a good example of how things should work: they are always working
> on improving KSS and have their own release schedule. The jquery work
> Martijn Pieters has done is another good example: he implemented that
> completel
good morning :),
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Of course that's the other side of the same coin. I completely
agree that we don't want that either. Hence my preference for
setting shortish (mid-Jan is only 1.5 months away), but realistic
deadlines based on the calendar,
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 bundles over New
Year for
Hi folks,
Just a small request: can we stick to this list for all framework
communications? Prevents a lot of double emails ;-)
Danny
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-t
