On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:39:21 -0800, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I agree :-) But I would like to see reasonable feedback from the Plone
community about any problems with 2.9.0 to have them fixed for you in
2.9.1.
Of course. We'd like to be running on 2.9 too. :)
--
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:30:37 -0800 Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:41 -0800, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just th
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 00:17, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:43:40 -, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Aspeli wrote:
> >> The broader point is we wouldn't really need it yet - we don't have
> >> any code that actually uses these new features, and plenty of
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:41 -0800, Andreas Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve
the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncert
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve
the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain,
What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)?
-aj
pg
I agree that Five development should happen in Five 1.4. This version
would then be the basis for Five in Zope 2.10. Increasing Zope 3
compatibility there is good and high priority. Doing so in Five 1.2 is
quite low priroty, since that runs on an old version of Zope 3, on
which new development seem
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Just to comment on this interchange: Tim Hicks isn't the only one who
> we'd need to explain a few things to in the new world order. We may end
> up with people just dumping packages in SOFTWARE_HOME's 'lib/python'
> directory if we're not careful.
You're right, we haven't
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> | Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> | > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> | > | Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
> | > | release) a
Tim Hicks wrote:
>>>Coming at this with a zope 2 head on, it seems to me that it might be
>>>nice if I could carry on using the Products directory so that when I add
>>>new 'products', I don't have to mix them in with the core zope code in
>>>lib/python/.
>>
>>What do you mean by "core zope code"?
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| > | Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
| > | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any
On 1/16/06, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a fundamentally different way of developing and installing
> products. Therefore it's good to ask why we would want to expose such a
> fundamentally new feature for Zope 2.8. Do we really want to start
> explaining to people that "My pro
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> | Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
> | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
> | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
| release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
| there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess.
There is at least o
Tim Hicks wrote:
>>>The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It
>>>gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology
>>>entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate
>>>early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages.
>>
>>You can t
On 16 Jan 2006, at 11:26, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is
actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this
regard? Is
Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
Yes.
Is CMF?
CMF 1.6 is. I ho
Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2
>> should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you
>> all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with
>> 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obvio
16 matches
Mail list logo
