Martin Aspeli wrote:
From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over
2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with
Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be.
If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[..]
except perhaps if he wants to get started right now, with Plone 2.1
(though that might still run under Zope 2.9 and CMF 1.6, I hope).
Well, I was tinkering a little bit with Plone 2.1 on Zope 2.9
(or the Plone-2.1 bundle to be precise) not too long ago and
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[..]
except perhaps if he wants to get started right now, with Plone 2.1
(though that might still run under Zope 2.9 and CMF 1.6, I hope).
Well, I was tinkering a little bit with Plone 2.1 on Zope 2.9
(or the Plone-2.1 bundle to be
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:45:14 -0800, Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to
roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*.
Conservative
or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't
Andrew Veitch wrote:
Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if
according to roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being
*discontinued*. Conservative or not, I wouldn't bet on a release
line that won't receive bugfixes the minute I start using it...
Just so I'm clear,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:50:44 -, whit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In actuality, the number of products that anyone depends on will not be
using this in 2.8, but making it available to 2.8 will give people an
opportunity to use this and familiarize themselves. for example, Plone
will be on
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 code that may
be broken by changes in CMF 2. All in good time - of course, if you
want to help work on CMF 2.0 compatability for the 2.5
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:37:41 -, Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there are two reasons Plone 2.5 is targetting CMF 1.6 (instead
of just going to CMF 2.0)
1) the risk that CMF 2.0 wouldn't be ready when plone -- and I'm
pretty sure the 6 month release rule has already been
Alexander Limi wrote:
From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over
2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with
Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be.
If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
Yes.
Yes to which question?
Yes to Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8.
Perhaps these use cases aren't
driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use
this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified?
The
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Okay, I read CMF 2.0 is targetting Zope 2.9 now, but Plone is, as of
yet, still targeting CMF 1.6. Whether they really will I guess also
depends on Plone's commitment to release this spring and suppress
changing things around.
I think there are two reasons Plone 2.5 is
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Fair enough. It seems to several people, though, that explaining to
people how Python packages are installed and then how you hook up these
packages into your instances is easier than explaining all the magic
that revolves around Products to them. Because in
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yes. In fact, if one exists, it's automatically put on your PYTHONPATH
for that instance. I think we should make Zope 2.8+ instance skeleta
grow a lib/python directory. This can hardly be considered a feature, so
we should be able to sneak it into the next
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When
now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be
in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML
directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Rocky how does your effort relate to Basket by the way? ISTR that Basket
aims at answering a similar use case.
Basket is for distributing zope2 products in egg form. I've been
working with Chris closely on it. In fact I added the support that
allows people to write
i'm -1 for expending extra effort to get this working on Zope 2.8. new
features should arrive w/ new versions. Plone 2.5 will require CMF-1.6,
which will work w/ both Z2.8 and Z2.9. those who want this feature can
run Plone on Z2.9, no prob.
i'd much rather see us focus our efforts on
On 1/15/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) work on the latest version of CMFonFive supported on Zope 2.8
(CMFonFive 1.2 svn branch) and provide a monkey patch for CMF 1.5 there.
Why do we need to support CMF 1.5?
We probably don't, but: If we want to make the
On 15 Jan 2006, at 12:04, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
CMFonFive version dance confuses the heck out of me, we should
try to
keep things simple.
Yes, I agree. So I think all of CMFonFive, including these changes,
should be in CMF 1.6. That ends the dance. It
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
What I am reading out of this is that *you* yourself have a burning
desire to continue supporting 1.5. I don't quite get it.
My biggest reason for wanting to support CMF 1.5 is so that Plone
developers don't have to wait *at least* another 4 months before they
can build
19 matches
Mail list logo
