Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Charlie Clark wrote: > > Am 02.03.2009 um 19:46 schrieb Hanno Schlichting: > > > This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example- > > application > > bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one. If > > you > > are really interested in doing this wor

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Charlie Clark
Am 02.03.2009 um 19:46 schrieb Hanno Schlichting: > This can happen in two ways, though. Either move the example- > application > bits into a different package or move the reusable bits into one. If > you > are really interested in doing this work, I'd be happy to figure out > what parts of CM

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Charlie Clark
Am 02.03.2009 um 19:27 schrieb yuppie: >>> This is on my todo list, but I still have to write a proposal. >> >> Hmm, I don't recall the issue here. > > There wasn't much discussion about this. > > Some time ago Dieter asked for grouping support: > http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2008-Sept

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Hanno Schlichting
yuppie wrote: > That would mean that CMFDefault-the-example-application will depend on > z3c.form. If we are going to split off the forms we need to split off > all browser views and the profiles that use these views. Something like > 'cmf.app' that includes all the CMFDefault stuff Plone doesn'

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread yuppie
Hi! Tres Seaver wrote: > yuppie wrote: >> 1.) look up add view actions in a different way >> --- >> >> The current implementation is not flexible enough. There is no way to >> sort or group these actions. >> >> This is on my todo list, but I still have

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yuppie wrote: > Hi! > > > Martin Aspeli wrote: >> Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >>> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm >>> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the >>> current trunk state ready to

[Zope-CMF] CMF Tests: 6 OK

2009-03-02 Thread CMF Tests Summarizer
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list. Period Sun Mar 1 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Mar 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from CMF Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: CMF Tests Date: Sun Mar 1 20:48:22 EST 2009 URL: ht

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 2, 2009, at 11:30 , Hanno Schlichting wrote: > yuppie wrote: >> 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties >> - >> >> See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html >> >> Unf

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread Hanno Schlichting
yuppie wrote: > 2.) get rid of redundant type info properties > - > > See http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html > > Unfortunately nobody seems to feel responsible for this. My mail had: "I have one small todo item on my list

Re: [Zope-CMF] [dev] CMF 2.2 plans?

2009-03-02 Thread yuppie
Hi! Martin Aspeli wrote: > Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >> I'll look at CMFCore and CMFDefault over the next few days (I'm >> traveling). Are there any code changes that you still need or is the >> current trunk state ready to be released from your point of view? > > I haven't looked into it in gre