[Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting Protocol 2014-11-25
Hello all, here is the Framework Team Meeting Protocol from 2014-11-25: Framework Team Meeting Protocol from 2014-11-25 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ky3LQ9H7o8I2Izyy2YX8qd1NV1ZG9aEJ3SBugTeh6AA The agenda was: - Loose dependency on plone.app.upgrade - PLIP 20144 - Make content-types folderish by default - dexterity behavior api - Plone 5 beta - plone.api - PLIPs on plone.org Other protocols can be found here: Framework Team Meeting Protocol Google Drive Folder https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B2ARzlIgSOhaXzNzV0V1NmIzQm8 Best, Johannes -- programmatic web development di(fh) johannes raggam / thet python plone zope development plone framework team member mail: off...@programmatic.pro web: http://programmatic.pro http://bluedynamics.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIP 20144
Dear Framework-team, I got the message that https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144 should be moved to 5.1, which is generally ok by me but I can't help wondering why. The implementation, upgrade-steps and tests are all done. Working with folderish dexterity-types in real projects has been tested by many developers for quite some time. What do you think needs more work or improvements for it to be included in Plone 5? I even migrated the test for plone.app.contentmenu (https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) to work with AT and DX to make sure nothing changes regarding the UI. I'm more than willing to put in more time if it means having this in Plone 5.0 and not 5.1 (which will be at least a year form now). I think the point when we move from AT to DX is also the right moment to switch from itemish to folderish. Also: If the -1 stands: You did not answer the question about the alternative folderish profile. Philip -- Starzel.de Philip Bauer Adlzreiterstr. 35 80337 München Tel: 089 - 189 29 533 Fax: 089 - 189 29 535 ba...@starzel.de www.starzel.de signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 20144
Sure, that's fine with me. Eric On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Raggam raggam...@adm.at wrote: The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze. The changes in PLIP 20144 might be small and the positive impact big, but there could be some negative impact: UI wise (although the default behavior isn't changed), performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise. Chances are, that beta is delayed anyways. IMO we could discuss this again at the meeting next week. I want to invite you for the FWT meeting on 2014-12-09, 21:00 CET to explain your standpoint. FWT, Everyone OK with that? Best, Johannes On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:13 +0100, Philip Bauer wrote: Dear Framework-team, I got the message that https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144 should be moved to 5.1, which is generally ok by me but I can't help wondering why. The implementation, upgrade-steps and tests are all done. Working with folderish dexterity-types in real projects has been tested by many developers for quite some time. What do you think needs more work or improvements for it to be included in Plone 5? I even migrated the test for plone.app.contentmenu ( https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) to work with AT and DX to make sure nothing changes regarding the UI. I'm more than willing to put in more time if it means having this in Plone 5.0 and not 5.1 (which will be at least a year form now). I think the point when we move from AT to DX is also the right moment to switch from itemish to folderish. Also: If the -1 stands: You did not answer the question about the alternative folderish profile. Philip -- Starzel.de Philip Bauer Adlzreiterstr. 35 80337 München Tel: 089 - 189 29 533 Fax: 089 - 189 29 535 ba...@starzel.de www.starzel.de ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team -- programmatic web development di(fh) johannes raggam / thet python plone zope development plone framework team member mail: off...@programmatic.pro web: http://programmatic.pro http://bluedynamics.com ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 20144
Hi, +1 for inviting Philip to the FWT meeting to discuss this topic. I agree we have lots of advantages. What I kept in mind from our discussion is one major risk: Third party code depending on IFolderish queries will break, because theres no difference any more. We need to have a clear way to check if something is a container by intend or just because its a folderish type (which is not used as folderish, just prepared to be used this way). For more see also the FWT protocol posted earlier on this list. greets Jens On 2014-12-01 13:55, Johannes Raggam wrote: The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze. The changes in PLIP 20144 might be small and the positive impact big, but there could be some negative impact: UI wise (although the default behavior isn't changed), performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise. Chances are, that beta is delayed anyways. IMO we could discuss this again at the meeting next week. I want to invite you for the FWT meeting on 2014-12-09, 21:00 CET to explain your standpoint. FWT, Everyone OK with that? Best, Johannes On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:13 +0100, Philip Bauer wrote: Dear Framework-team, I got the message that https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144 should be moved to 5.1, which is generally ok by me but I can't help wondering why. The implementation, upgrade-steps and tests are all done. Working with folderish dexterity-types in real projects has been tested by many developers for quite some time. What do you think needs more work or improvements for it to be included in Plone 5? I even migrated the test for plone.app.contentmenu (https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) to work with AT and DX to make sure nothing changes regarding the UI. I'm more than willing to put in more time if it means having this in Plone 5.0 and not 5.1 (which will be at least a year form now). I think the point when we move from AT to DX is also the right moment to switch from itemish to folderish. Also: If the -1 stands: You did not answer the question about the alternative folderish profile. Philip -- Starzel.de Philip Bauer Adlzreiterstr. 35 80337 München Tel: 089 - 189 29 533 Fax: 089 - 189 29 535 ba...@starzel.de www.starzel.de ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team -- Klein Partner KG, member of BlueDynamics Alliance ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 20144
Am 01.12.2014 um 13:55 schrieb Johannes Raggam: The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze. As far as I know we already declared a feature freeze quite some time ago. Eric confirmed that during the last FWT meeting, right? The changes in PLIP 20144 might be small and the positive impact big, but there could be some negative impact: UI wise (although the default behavior isn't changed), Which is also one major point why I'm -1. We are making a small change, that is inconsistent (some objects will be folderish, others are not), just to somehow get closer to the real goal (all objects folderish, also fundamental UI changes). Dylan investigated the possibilities to move the 100% to folderish types option and the last thing that I heard was that there are some serious UI problems that can not be solved easily. Before we move into that direction, we should think carefully about where we are heading before we start with the implementation and moving things into the core. Also we are going to confuse developers by introducing another way of doing things and changing one of basic principles of Plone development (that a folderish object is a container that implements IFolderish). If we are serious about making Plone development easier, we have to remove inconsistencies, not introducing more of them. In addition, we already have at least three versions of p.a.contenttypes that we need to support. Do you really want to add and maintain a fourth and fifth version in parallel? performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise. Measuring test execution time does not prove at all that there are no performance impacts. Chances are, that beta is delayed anyways. IMO we could discuss this again at the meeting next week. I want to invite you for the FWT meeting on 2014-12-09, 21:00 CET to explain your standpoint. FWT, Everyone OK with that? I don't see how that would change our decision from the last meeting. I would really like us to focus on getting Plone 5 out of the door (going through the blockers, discussing how we can speed up things, etc.). Timo ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 20144
Dylan wrote (https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144#comment:12): You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not going to explain them a third time. There are UX bugs with this current proposal that will need to be addressed to prevent confusion when using sharing, portlets and navigation titles. There is no point introducing a feature if it makes the product more complicated. Please refer to recent UI team discussion on this PLIP. As I said before on the FWT meeting. I'm not opposed at all to the idea of having everything folderish. Though, the discussion is not new and I don't think we are not going to solve a debate that has been around for year in the last minutes before a major release. BTW: Did we assign a FWT member for an initial review of the PLIP? Timo Am 01.12.2014 um 14:10 schrieb Jens W. Klein: Hi, +1 for inviting Philip to the FWT meeting to discuss this topic. I agree we have lots of advantages. What I kept in mind from our discussion is one major risk: Third party code depending on IFolderish queries will break, because theres no difference any more. We need to have a clear way to check if something is a container by intend or just because its a folderish type (which is not used as folderish, just prepared to be used this way). For more see also the FWT protocol posted earlier on this list. greets Jens On 2014-12-01 13:55, Johannes Raggam wrote: The decision was made because we don't want to have Plone 5 beta further delayed and some were opting for a feature freeze. The changes in PLIP 20144 might be small and the positive impact big, but there could be some negative impact: UI wise (although the default behavior isn't changed), performance wise (you already proofed, that tests run the same speed with or without folderish base types) or memory wise. Chances are, that beta is delayed anyways. IMO we could discuss this again at the meeting next week. I want to invite you for the FWT meeting on 2014-12-09, 21:00 CET to explain your standpoint. FWT, Everyone OK with that? Best, Johannes On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 13:13 +0100, Philip Bauer wrote: Dear Framework-team, I got the message that https://dev.plone.org/ticket/20144 should be moved to 5.1, which is generally ok by me but I can't help wondering why. The implementation, upgrade-steps and tests are all done. Working with folderish dexterity-types in real projects has been tested by many developers for quite some time. What do you think needs more work or improvements for it to be included in Plone 5? I even migrated the test for plone.app.contentmenu (https://github.com/plone/plone.app.contentmenu/pull/8) to work with AT and DX to make sure nothing changes regarding the UI. I'm more than willing to put in more time if it means having this in Plone 5.0 and not 5.1 (which will be at least a year form now). I think the point when we move from AT to DX is also the right moment to switch from itemish to folderish. Also: If the -1 stands: You did not answer the question about the alternative folderish profile. Philip -- Starzel.de Philip Bauer Adlzreiterstr. 35 80337 München Tel: 089 - 189 29 533 Fax: 089 - 189 29 535 ba...@starzel.de www.starzel.de ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list framework-t...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-framework-team
