Am 29.10.2013 20:03, schrieb Andreas Jung:
Héctor Velarde wrote:
we use Products.EasyNewsletter in many projects as our preferred
newsletter solution but seems that the package development is a
little bit abandoned these days. I see there are some pull requests
waiting without response
on the other side, are there any other packages to solve the newsletter use
case?
what are you using nowadays?
http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/how-to-code-html-emails
Developing newsletters? Never again.
-M
___
Product-Developers mailing list
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Johannes Raggam raggam...@adm.at wrote:
I've once updated p4a.newsletter from Malthe Borch and renamed it to
collective.newsletter. there is no release yet, but you can get it here:
https://github.com/collective/collective.newsletter
the nice thing is, that
Hi,
Am 30.10.2013 10:19, schrieb Luca Fabbri:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Johannes Raggam raggam...@adm.at wrote:
I've once updated p4a.newsletter from Malthe Borch and renamed it to
collective.newsletter. there is no release yet, but you can get it here:
On 29-10-2013 18:03, Johannes Raggam wrote:
I've once updated p4a.newsletter from Malthe Borch and renamed it to
collective.newsletter. there is no release yet, but you can get it here:
https://github.com/collective/collective.newsletter
HV anything with p4a in its name gives me chills, no
On 30-10-2013 04:51, Timo Stollenwerk wrote:
EasyNewsletter is just completely broken in my opinion (I tried to
refactor/fix some things and added some tests until I came to that
conclusion). I would not recommend to start using it.
HV seems this time everybody agrees with Andreas :-)
good to
can someone make a new release of Solgema.fullcalendar? we need to
deploy it on a new project and would love to see our translations there:
https://github.com/collective/Solgema.fullcalendar/blob/master/CHANGES.rst#232-unreleased
BTW, I was really shocked yesterday when I discovered the
On Mit, 2013-10-30 at 11:38 -0200, Héctor Velarde wrote:
On 29-10-2013 18:03, Johannes Raggam wrote:
I've once updated p4a.newsletter from Malthe Borch and renamed it to
collective.newsletter. there is no release yet, but you can get it here:
Hi,
On 30 October 2013 17:07, Gaël Pegliasco
gael.peglia...@makina-corpus.comwrote:
Well, I do not totally agree about collective.mailchimp as a valid
alternative to collective.ProductsEasyNewsletter.
Yes, MailChimp is the sate of the art regarding newsletters management and
clearly open
On 10/30/13, 1:44 AM, Mikko Ohtamaa wrote:
on the other side, are there any other packages to solve the
newsletter use case?
what are you using nowadays?
http://kb.mailchimp.com/article/how-to-code-html-emails
Developing newsletters? Never again.
Not even once.
We are looking at transitioning from ArchGenUML to AGX for development of
dexterity content types. Is anyone using AGX to develop dexterity
products? If you are using it, were you able to transition previous UML
projects (archetypes based) to dexterity? What is your overall impression
of AGX?
according to our versioning scheme conventions, we should do the following:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
* MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
* MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible
manner, and
* PATCH version when
Our versioning schema refers to Plone?
-aj
hvelarde wrote
according to our versioning scheme conventions, we should do the
following:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
* MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
* MINOR version when you add
On 10/30/13, 12:17 PM, Héctor Velarde wrote:
according to our versioning scheme conventions, we should do the
following:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
* MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes,
* MINOR version when you add functionality in a
HV this is the Plone Product Developers, isn't it?
http://developer.plone.org/reference_manuals/external/plone.api/contribute/conventions.html#versioning-scheme
see what happens when you miss a Plone Conference?
Héctor Velarde
On 30-10-2013 17:26, ajung wrote:
Our versioning schema refers to
On 30 okt. 2013, at 21:00, Johannes Raggam raggam...@adm.at wrote:
Regarding versioning schemes: Comparing the versioning scheme section
described in conventions.rst, which I wrote and the scheme described on
http://semver.org/ - there are some differences regarding pre-release
versions.
Oops correction: 1.2.3dev 1.2.3rc1
1.2.3rc1 = 1.2.3.rc1 = 1.2.3-rc1 = 1.2.3.c
rc = .rc = -rc = c
dev follows c
So using .dev as if it were equal or before alpha is faulty. A dev release is
between beta and final.
--
Guido Stevens | +31.43.3618933 | http://cosent.nl
s o c i a l k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Glick (Plone) wrote:
On 10/30/13, 12:17 PM, Héctor Velarde wrote:
according to our versioning scheme conventions, we should do the
following:
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:
* MAJOR version when you make
18 matches
Mail list logo
