-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
We have contributed quite a few bug fixes to CMF, though that has been
hampered by problems getting CVS access (I sent in my contributor form
over a year ago and have yet to hear anything; as Tres has indicated,
this has been a problem for several other Plone developers as well).
I'm hoping that will move along faster now. That's out of the hands of
any of the active developers unfortunately.
I am working with Jim and Andrew to expedite access for Geoff and for
Alec Mitchell. Please let me know of any other Plone folks who want to
contribute to CMF but whose repository access is stuck.
We have also offered some fairly substantial pieces of code to the CMF
(Archetypes, CMFFormController, SpeedPack), but have met with
indifference and/or active rejection. I have several products I think
could find a home in the CMF, but given the response to previous offers,
I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to make the offer.
I don't claim to know the details of how that went down, but I
distinctly remember from the time both Tres and I were still at ZC that
Tres offered to incorporate AT and have it become part of CMF. I'm not
sure who exactly he talked to, but from what I remember that was met
with the same indifference you're attesting the CMF community.
One issue was licensing; contributor access may also have been a
problem for some folks. I think the discussion around Archetypes, in
particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to code
generation design should be preferred over configuration-based design
(as found in CPSSchemas, for instance).
In general, I sense a fair amount of hostility to Plone expressed on the
list in the form of gratuitous sniping.
If you want us to participate, it might help to play more nicely.
I would like to note that CMF != Plone. Plone is the largest
consumer, correct, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses CMF uses
Plone, or that individual participants are forbidden to have a negative
opinion about Plone. Life on mailing lists is tough and full of taunts
and flame throwing. The CMF list is actually one of the least
offensive lists I am on.
Gratuitous is the key here -- neither the CMF nor Plone are perfect
pieces of software, and we can all be honest (and even fairly peeved, at
times) about that. We shouldn't have to attribute malice or stupidity
to each other over that fact, however: there is plenty enough blame to
go around.
Geoff, we *do* want the Plone developers to participate here. Some of
the past history we can let pass, in order to share better in the
future. In general, we would like to see infrastructure components
shared, where possible.
That said, I have heard some good ideas from e.g. Paul about how to
re-align the factions better in the future and I hope both Paul and
Tres can talk about it more in Vienna, and pull in suitable Plone
leaders. It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more
to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped
reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone)
in the CMF or other non-Plone core products.
Exactly.
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC7n5/+gerLs4ltQ4RAhIpAJ0Qi2QETxx/+QFVCHvlyTOsKcGvtACg0VK1
bE3pzHLOe6f9vmMir7VECMs=
=zoRB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
