[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Am Sat, 09 May 2009 02:50:27 -0700 schrieb Alexander Limi: On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:26:37 -0700, Alec Mitchell ap...@columbia.edu wrote: If you want to pinpoint a release that broke expectations with regard to compatibility, Plone 2.1 is a far better example. Just to make sure history is represented correctly here — Alec is absolutely right. Plone 2.5 was a well-managed release, 2.1 was a disaster (from a release management perspective). Luckily, we've had incredible release managers and good processes from Alec going forward — and we're extremely fortunate in that regard. I agreed 100%. Anyway, the version numbering was not simple to understand. 2.0 - 2.1 was from the number of changes a major. and by changing to PAS in 2.5 it was also kind of major (breaking existing installations). In past it was very difficult to explain to customers and even to new developers. Now with 3.x only change minor and upgrades are simple statement all are very happy! The current plan to name it 4.0 is in my opinion very good, even if the changes are not that major than first planned. just my 0,02 Euro -- 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: Plone 3.5
Hanno Schlichting wrote: The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. sounds good to me, +1. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.2 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Matthew Wilkes wrote: On 5 May 2009, at 12:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote: The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5 that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both refresh some of our technical underpinnings in addition to some more intrusive feature changes we didn't allow ourselves in the 3.x series so far. Why skip 3.4? That Plone 2.5 was a major release was quite nasty, it confused people about what was a major release and what isn't. We've made a commitment to 3.x being stable, I think we should keep to it. Releasing a Plone 3.5 would confuse the matter. It's tricky, and we discussed this back and forth a few times before this proposal was formulated. I still think the version numbering is up for discussion. The thinking is basically: - We'd like to move to ZODB 3.9 (blobs), Zope 2.11 (Zope 3.4), and possibly CMF 2.2 (trunk). Those changes are too big for the stability promise in 3.x. Note that there's a certain imperative in this. In particular, I *hope* that we can get unofficial Python 2.5 support for Zope 2.11. Zope 3.3 is also becoming kind of painful as a platform. And blobs are way overdue. - We'd like to integrate some new features. Not critical stuff that couldn't be done with surgical add-ons, but nice-to-haves that will improve the experience for a lot of people. - However, to end users, this is still incremental stuff - not really enough for the kind of marketing push we'd like to attach to a 'point-oh' release. - The term Plone 4 is already out there meaning trunk, deco, deliverance, dexterity, unified types, tiles, and all that jazz. If we suddenly now start talking about a much more incremental Plone 4, we'll cause a lot of confusion. So, 3.5 is a compromise. The skipping of 3.4 actually helps back the story up. We could try something else, like Plone 2009, but I'm pretty sure we'd regret that in 2010 for one reason or another. And PyPI wouldn't like it. However, it would be interesting to open the new features to a wider audience ASAP. I'd be in favour of this if: - It wasn't called Plone 3.x or 4.x (Dunno what though) Yeah, thanks for helping. :p - We maintained 3.x as officially supported I think that'd be the case under the two supported versions policy. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi. While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the current stable 3.x releases and the future. The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5 that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both refresh some of our technical underpinnings in addition to some more intrusive feature changes we didn't allow ourselves in the 3.x series so far. While I like the idea in general I would be very careful not to break our promise of Plone 3.x being stable, maintained, backwards compatible, not breaking 3rd-party add-ons etc. until Plone 4 is out for a while. Just for the record: we (the Plone 3 framework team) even got some critic from the doc team for allowing http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/243 into Plone 3.3 as this had somewhat of an impact on the forthcoming manual. (not to mention all the printed books that appeared recently and that are going to appear soon) After quickly browsing through Hanno's list I don't see a reason to break our pattern and to call this 3.5. At first glance it seems perfectly feasible to me to introduce at least most of the changes proposed here in Plone 3.4, 3.5, 3.6. Having said that I'm not so sure this should be handled by the Plone 4 FWT alone. Regarding the release manager on the other hand I have nothing but a warm welcome and the best wishes for Eric! Glad to see you getting more involved. Of course I would have specific comments on some of those changes but this is not the place and time to do into the details I guess. Just my 2 cents, Raphael ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Andreas Zeidler wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. sounds good to me, +1. actually, i think it should still be plone 4.0 (with the remaining features deferred to 5.0 or later). otherwise i think it's a good idea in the sense of release early, release often. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.2 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: Hanno Schlichting wrote: The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. sounds good to me, +1. actually, i think it should still be plone 4.0 (with the remaining features deferred to 5.0 or later). otherwise i think it's a good idea in the sense of release early, release often. +1 In hindsight I feel it was a mistake to assign a version number to Plone trunk. It might end up being Plone 5, 6, 7 or 3000. Using Plone 4 instead of 3.5 means that we will not break our promise to never break stability in the 3.x, something I feel quite strongly about. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Hanno Schlichting schrieb: While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the current stable 3.x releases and the future. The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5 that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both refresh some of our technical underpinnings in addition to some more intrusive feature changes we didn't allow ourselves in the 3.x series so far. [...] This is only a proposal that needs community feedback and encouragement at this point to make it into an official roadmap. The next steps are to have an open discussion about this for the next one to two weeks. If it meets general favor, we will appoint the new/old framework team and let them recommend a release manager to the Foundation board for official nomination. Improving Plone and cleaning up things is always a good thing. But a 3.5 major release will break the users expectations to have a stable backward compatible 3.x release cycle. It's also confusing to name a major version x.5 with all the consequences like incompatible 3.x Add-Ons. The naming of Plone 2.5 was a rather unfortunate thing. The proper naming for a backward incompatible release should be 4.0. I think nobody wants a short living 4.0 release and rename the current Plone 4 to Plone 5. I'm in favour to put as much changes into a 3.4 that are backward compatible. I think it's ok to change some defaults for new Sites that can be easily changed by an administrator like TinyMCE/optional packages/Additional Roles that can. Thus I don't now what consequences this would have for our documentation team. Changes that bring other than really minor incompatibilities for 3.x add-ons are a no-go for a 3.x release imho. ..Carsten ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
On 5 May 2009, at 13:20, Martin Aspeli wrote: snip Yes, I agree with all of these, and do think they're needed. So, 3.5 is a compromise. The skipping of 3.4 actually helps back the story up. We could try something else, like Plone 2009, but I'm pretty sure we'd regret that in 2010 for one reason or another. And PyPI wouldn't like it. That's true, I am very nervous about the Plone 3.x compatibility becoming =3.0,3.5-dev though - it is a change in policy to what we've previously said and I do think it would catch people out. I had some issues with mails bouncing as I'm subscribed with different addresses to different lists, so, to reiterate, if we keep Plone 3.3 supported and make it clear that there's a significant difference between 3.3 and 3.5, then I'm +0. I'd only be +1 if we could make that explicit in the name. This is not because of the proposal, I'm very much in favour of the proposal in principle, it's just the fact we lose our easy-to-understand compatibility promise by making a decision very much like the one we made in Plone 2.5. Yeah, thanks for helping. :p There may well not be a name that would satisfy me. I can't think of one, you can't think of one, there may just not be one. I think that'd be the case under the two supported versions policy. But that would mean that when 4.0 comes out 3.5 becomes unsupported completely. Is that desirable? I'm not trying to be an arse here Martin, really, I'm just concerned about 3.x users. We've managed to remove a lot of fear from upgrades in the 3.x series, I don't want to lose that. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Jens W. Klein wrote: I just can say here: I agree to delay features and make the next major 4.0 and not 3.5. Dont make the same mistakes again (looking at 2.5). Who said anything about delaying features? This proposal suggests a feature set that is incremental to the 3.x series, way less than what we've been tabling for 4.0 so far, but still a bit too much for a 3.x under the current stability packt. Or did you mean to vote against the proposal wholesale, and have no half-way between 3.x and 4.0? Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5
Am Tue, 05 May 2009 22:08:14 +0800 schrieb Martin Aspeli: Jens W. Klein wrote: I just can say here: I agree to delay features and make the next major 4.0 and not 3.5. Dont make the same mistakes again (looking at 2.5). Who said anything about delaying features? sorry - my bad english, what i mean is to put risky features proposed for 4.0 on a 5 (6,7...) release number. Then make what now is discussed as 3.5 the 4.0 release. Ths communicates clearly the stability and serves the needs of the Plone- integrators and developers. This proposal suggests a feature set that is incremental to the 3.x series, way less than what we've been tabling for 4.0 so far, but still a bit too much for a 3.x under the current stability packt. right, and for this reason i'd name it 4.0 and not 3.5. Or did you mean to vote against the proposal wholesale, and have no half-way between 3.x and 4.0? I would just not be so stingy with major release-numbers. 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
