Hi,
This isn't strictly a framework team subject, but thought I'd give a
little heads-up on something Hanno and myself have been discussing:
For Plone 3.1, I want to do a big translation push. Our goal is to get the
40 languages that cover more than 99% of the world's online population as
Previously Alexander Limi wrote:
Hi,
This isn't strictly a framework team subject, but thought I'd give a
little heads-up on something Hanno and myself have been discussing:
For Plone 3.1, I want to do a big translation push. Our goal is to get the
40 languages that cover more than
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 9:32 AM, Alexander Limi wrote:
You probably see where I'm going with this, but: I'd like to ship
3.1 with a set of .po files that do not contain the strings from
Plone 2.5. Hanno said it would take him a couple of hours to weed
out the stuff that is 2.5-specific, and
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
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 anyway:
tools like pylint[1] and pyflakes[2] have
On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[3] which basically means all packages except `statusmessages`
(guess who owns that ;)) as you can see from the attached list
counting the warnings; i should note that this list still contains
warnings about namespace package
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.
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 Jan 31, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
[*] 17 submitted bundles times 2 makes 34 reviews, which results in
6.8 for each team member
i've just noticed that PLIP 215 was missing from the list, since it
wasn't marked as having a bundle available yet. so we've got 18
packages,
On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 01.02.2008, at 12:07, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
yes, i'm very much aware of these problems having used pyflakes
myself for quite some time now. that's one of the reasons i'm
bringing this up here (instead of starting to weed away on
trunk :)).
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
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:34:01 +0100, Andreas Zeidler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
given the aforementioned possibility of 3rd party breakage i think
it's plain that 'pyflakes sanity' is a no-go for 3.1 but perhaps
On Feb 1, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 1. feb.. 2008, at 12.28, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Careful with weeding imports. I recently had to fix a migration
issue
for a customer, where a persistent tool had been moved into another
module with an import at the old location. Someone else
On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Florian Schulze wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:34:01 +0100, Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so, how about this? deprecating imports in interface packages, which
are not used in plone core, is okay as well as removing unused import
from any other package?
20 matches
Mail list logo
