Alec Mitchell wrote:
I understand the purpose it would serve, but on what basis would we
make such a determination?
I suggested a few principles in my original mail.
However, I'm not advocating that we try to limit the scope, only that we
don't let the release by delayed by an overwhelmed fr
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Alec Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
- We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1.
There's
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
wrote:
- We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1. There's
no reason we can't and shouldn't start planning for that now. So, if a PLIP
looks like
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
> wrote:
>
>> - We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1. There's
>> no reason we can't and shouldn't start planning for that now. So, if a PLIP
>> looks like it'll take
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
wrote:
- We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1.
There's no reason we can't and shouldn't start planning for that now.
So, if a PLIP looks like it'll take longer to do, we can still vote +1
in principle, but targe
Joel Burton wrote:
Hello, Framework Team!
A lot of very sensible things were said in this thread.
I have two concerns:
1) We shouldn't let 4.0 be the excuse to let trunk languish
indefinitely. There are important, innovative things we want to do there
(like Deco and Tiles) that we need to
Alec Mitchell writes:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Matthew Wilkes
>> writes:
>>
>>> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>>
>
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forw
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
> Matthew Wilkes
> writes:
>
>> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
>>> feautres,
>>> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
>>> Zope,
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put th
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put the
things Laurence m
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Personally I'd be in favor of extending the scope of Plone 4.0 to some
degree and making a clear commitment to allow quite a number of the
suggested features to be done in the scope of Plone 4.1, 4.2, ...
releases. Much of the work that makes up Plone trunk (5.0?) today i
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new feautres,
> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
> Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
> least to my outsider's eyes
Matthew Wilkes
writes:
> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
>> feautres,
>> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
>> Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
>
On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
least to my outsider's eyes.
Hmm,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joel Burton wrote:
> Hello, Framework Team!
>
> I, myself, don't have any questions or issues about the PLIP deadline
> for 4.0. I'm not planning on submitting any PLIPs.
>
> Over the past two weeks, though, while chatting in IRC with various
> frame
Joel Burton writes:
> I don't know what the discussion was like in deciding on this date. It
> may still be the right decision to have it end now. I'm just
> suggesting that, if it seems that quite a few people may think that
> this is a slightly-too-soon date, that you may benefit from having
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
