this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup, i don't see a compelling reason to complicate things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive stays separate, then you can code it
to support
On 5 Jan 2006, at 09:40, Lennart Regebro wrote:
this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup, i don't see a compelling reason to complicate
things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive
On 1/5/06, Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I didn't follow this discussion closely, so you want to merge
the last remnants of CMFonFive into CMF 1.6 and 2.0, is that the
suggestion?
It's already merged into CMF 2.0 (although it's not actuall *working* yet. ;) )
So it's only 1.6
Lennart Regebro wrote:
this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup, i don't see a compelling reason to complicate things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive stays separate, then you can
On 1/5/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe i'm being dense, but i don't see how merging the code into the CMF
core improves this. if i'm understanding this correctly, you wouldn't
be increasing the number of supported combinations at all;
No, I'd just get rid of a whole lot of
Lennart Regebro wrote:
And CMF 1.6 already has more changes that just GenericSetup, some of
which are already causing me other headaches.
which are these? the most significant changes are in the TypesTool, and
this was done in order to achieve more parity btn the 1.6 and 2.0 site
creation
On 1/5/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
And CMF 1.6 already has more changes that just GenericSetup, some of
which are already causing me other headaches.
which are these? the most significant changes are in the TypesTool, and
this was done in order to
On 1/4/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
urgh. this isn't ideal for Plone. i'm assuming you've hit some
specific problems w/ getting the current CMFonFive code to support both
2.8 and 2.9? can you provide a little more detail re: the compatibility
issues? in the meantime, i'll bring
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/4/06, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
urgh. this isn't ideal for Plone. i'm assuming you've hit some
specific problems w/ getting the current CMFonFive code to support both
2.8 and 2.9? can you provide a little more detail re: the compatibility
issues? in
