Just as a heads-up:
I would like to release a second beta (1.5.1beta2) this coming weekend.
If no serious bugs are found, the final version (to be released 1-2
weeks later) should not be much different from the beta.
To help this process, once 1.5.1beta2 is out I would like to restrict
Zope Corporation is pleased to announce the release of version
1.5.1beta2 of the Zope Content Management Framework (CMF). This release
is intended for testing purposes only; we do not recommend deploying
it to production servers. The final release of version 1.5.1 is
expected on the weekend
On May 4, 2005, at 11:09 , Stefan H. Holek wrote:
+1 here
Once you start working with svn you will quickly realize how
annoying cvs can be, Jens ;-)
That's the argumentation I don't like. It's better means nothing to
me. You need to keep in mind that there are two groups of people
affected
On May 5, 2005, at 6:17 , Florent Guillaume wrote:
You're force-volunteering people at ZC right now to do that work.
They should have the final word, if anyone.
I don't see how I could force-volunteer someone at ZC. I'm trying
to see
if people would be interested, and stress point why they
On May 11, 2005, at 20:08, Christian Heimes wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Hopefully CMF 1.5 will work with Zope 2.8?! Every software has
its time...and
the time of CMF 1.4 is nearly over :-)
Well, tell that to the Plone folks. Actually, IMHO I don't see the
sense in trying to make it run
Question to the group: Any problem with starting the CMF 1.5.2 beta
cycle this week or next week?
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug
On 13 Jun 2005, at 15:59, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question to the group: Any problem with starting the CMF 1.5.2 beta
cycle this week or next week?
No problem, however I'll still be checking in changes to CMFSetup
in the
next few days.
Don't
On 17 Jun 2005, at 20:46, Christian Heimes wrote:
yuppie wrote:
But AFAICS it doesn't make much sense for the CMF to duplicate a
feature that Zope 2.8/Five provides already.
You are right but we can't use new Zope 2.8 features at the moment.
It would delay Plone 2.1 and introduce new
On 20 Jun 2005, at 09:24, Christian Heimes wrote:
yuppie wrote:
First of all CMF 1.5.2 has to be backwards compatible to CMF
1.5.0 and
1.5.1, so reverting that change is no option.
That is understandable from your point of view but I don't agree
with the desicion. The new ordered
On 20 Jun 2005, at 10:56, yuppie wrote:
The downside is that software written for CMF 1.5 has to be
altered. But it is much easier to alter a few lines in some
products than trying to get rid of the ordered stuff in PortalFolder.
That's not fair. You are free to ignore CMF development
On 20 Jun 2005, at 18:22, Tres Seaver wrote:
Yvo, Jens, Florent: you were the last ones to chime on on the CMF
1.5.2 thread; would that work for you, assuming we merge Christian's
patch?
I can tag at any point in time.
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist
Zope Corporation is pleased to announce the release of version
1.5.2beta of the Zope Content Management Framework (CMF). This
release is intended for testing purposes only; we do not recommend
deploying it to production servers. The final release of version
1.5.2 is expected mid-July
On 28 Jun 2005, at 11:25, yuppie wrote:
Well. I don't consider this a release candidate. There are still
issues with Zope 2.8.0 compatibility. Some of them are resolved on
the Zope-2_8-branch, but I think we should try to make CMF 1.5.2
work with Zope 2.8.0:
At this point the policy is
On 28 Jun 2005, at 13:13, Florent Guillaume wrote:
yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides that, I'm a bit confused by the fact that Florent didn't
backport his latest CMFSetup changes to the CMF-1_5-branch.
Yeah I was waiting to see if I had more changes to do on HEAD before
backporting
Since the list of issues has already shrunk a lot this last week I
propose cutting the (final) beta shortly after this coming weekend
(I'll be in Edinburgh that weekend, otherwise I'd suggest the weekend).
Any good reason not to do CMF 1.5.2beta2 on Monday, June 11? Speak up
now or forever
On 7 Jul 2005, at 22:06, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We had a very productive day today:
snip
I propose to at least prepare CVS and tag the 1.5.2beta2 release at
COB here in the UK. After yesterday's events I decided not to travel
this weekend so it
On 11 Jul 2005, at 20:08, Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
/note this is a resend original send failed because of attached
script which is now inlined.
the plone.org and collective cvs-svn migrations basically use cvs2svn
on a particular project subdirectory and then move the generated
On 23 Jul 2005, at 18:21, David Pratt wrote:
/usr/local/zope/instance1/Products/CMFCore/utils.py:427:
DeprecationWarning: The product_name parameter of ToolInit is
deprecated and will be ignored in CMF1.6: kupu
DeprecationWarning)
I checked with CMFDefault to see it there was a different
On 25 Jul 2005, at 21:06, Tres Seaver wrote:
Looks fine. Can you add it with a test?
Before that: Move your sandbox to SVN. Don't check into CVS.
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
If we have a go for the beta I suggest cutting the tag and
publishing the release tomorrow morning, about 9am british time.
That way zope.org won't have traffic from the Americas, making it
marginally more responsive ;)
Great, thanks! I am planning to release Plone 2.1 final in 2 weeks.
Alright, it's out now. I probably spent 90% of the last two hours
fighting zope.org which was near-unresponsive...
Anyway, since this is a beta the usual precautions apply:
- No non-critical-bugfix checkins on the CMF 1.5 branch until CMF
1.5.3 final is out
- Please help test the release,
?
The CMF Collector:http://zope.org/Collectors/CMF
is the place to report bugs (please search for existing
reports of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http
On 2 Aug 2005, at 13:27, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
I plan to package up CMF 1.5.3 final tomorrow so it's ready for the
Plone 2.1 release next week.
SVN shows no changes since the beta, except for one small formatting
change in CHANGES.txt. One additional bug came in via the collector
and it seems an easy fix so I'll look at it later today.
On 7 Aug 2005, at 09:59, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
The CMF developer community and Zope Corporation are pleased to
announce the release of version 1.5.3 of the Zope Content Management
Framework (CMF). This release marks the latest stable release in the
CMF 1.5 series and should be suitable
of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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
I'd like to work at least on the first 3 items for CMF 1.6. AFAICS
this should not break anything on Zope 2.8.0. But maybe we should
anyway make Zope 2.8.1 the required platform for CMF 1.6.
Making Zope 2.8.1 the required platform for CMF 1.6 is fine IMHO, I
believe we have plenty of
On 11 Aug 2005, at 12:10, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Sorry, my bad. Do we have some developer doc hanging around
somewhere where we can collect those must do tasks?
How about
http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Subversion/ZopeSVNFAQ
(note the third point there)
Excellent. It's set up that way in
So hopefully this is the last pre-Plone 2.1 release. As always,
please test this is as good as you can and don't check anything
that's not an urgent bug fix into the 1.5 branch until 1.5.4 final is
out, which I plan on doing this coming weekend unless something bad
happens.
The changes,
On 27 Aug 2005, at 02:30, Rob Miller wrote:
sidnei has written an excellent product called Flon (i.e. Five for
Plone) which provides a user interface for examining the Z3
interfaces that an object may have, and for assigning marker
interfaces to particular content instances. whit morriss
On 25 Aug 2005, at 18:27, Paul Everitt wrote:
Hi, CMF folks. Munwar and I would like to start public discussion
about Goldegg, a funding initiative for advancing Zope 3 in the
Plone/CMF/Five software stack. In summary, Goldegg provides
funding to get Zope 3 into the near-term roadmaps of
On 2 Sep 2005, at 23:49, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:08:37 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
IMHO there is at least one problematic item (well, it's not for the
trunk, but for the 1.5/1.4 branches), which is the dependency on
ZopeTestCase. The way the code works right now you
Collector:http://zope.org/Collectors/CMF
is ths place to report bugs (please search for existing
reports of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman
On 6 Sep 2005, at 11:19, yuppie wrote:
Hi!
If there are no objections I'll make Zope 2.8.1 the required
platform for CMF trunk/1.6 and remove the Zope 2.8.0 backwards
compatibility code.
Reasons:
- I hope some day CMF-tseaver-z3_interfaces-branch will be finished
and merged. To do
On 8 Sep 2005, at 12:00, yuppie wrote:
PS Those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTestCase causing
test
problems in Zope 2.7 might want to take a look at why
test_z3interfaces is
broken when you run the tests with zopectl test.
1.) Why those of you who raised concerns about
On 8 Sep 2005, at 16:48, Geoff Davis wrote:
bin/zopectl test --dir Products/CMFCore/tests
I get a bunch of errors like the following:
==
ERROR: test_z3interfaces
(CMFCore.tests.test_ActionInformation.ActionInfoTests)
Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data
between CMFSetup type information XML files and
factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules. It
would be cool if the XML files could
On 11 Sep 2005, at 17:22, yuppie wrote:
Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data
between CMFSetup type information XML files and
factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules.
On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:46, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Log message for revision 38449:
- Backport Jens V. changes to Geoff D.'s Caching Policy Manager
branch
Sidnei, you're a bit overeager - I am still waiting for feedback from
Geoff! ;)
jens
On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:42, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
|
| On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:46, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
|
| Log message for revision 38449:
|
| - Backport Jens V. changes to Geoff D.'s Caching Policy Manager
| branch
|
| Sidnei
On 12 Sep 2005, at 17:12, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in
question:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
rev=38439view=rev
Geoff, as the one
On 21 Sep 2005, at 11:48, Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 38552:
CMFSetup: added support for configuring cookie auth and mailhost
tools
This patch is broken, as I am finding out. Please don't put it on the
head until it is fixed. In CMF 1.5 it's now impossible to add a
On 22 Sep 2005, at 11:55, computing project wrote:
Apologies! Although I had tested adding the configured site via
the ZMI several times (though only on 2.8), the removal of the two
lines in setuphandlers somehow got missed out when I posted the
code and patches.
It is true that I
On 22 Sep 2005, at 12:55, pete wrote:
Thanks that has made everything much clearer. I'll make sure I
label clearly what conditions I've tested things under in future: I
hadn't fully appreciated that the head might have different
dependencies from the 1.5 branch, though the possibility
On 21 Sep 2005, at 18:10, yuppie wrote:
I see sporadic import errors caused by circular imports:
snip
While not documented in CMFTopic/DEPENDENCIES.txt, http://
svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/?rev=38002view=rev added a new dependency
on CMFDefault's SkinnedFolder.
Not sure how to resolve this.
Just noticed another debilitating problem with the new cookie
crumbler setup driven by CMFSetup in both SVN trunk and the 1.5 branch.
Symptom: In a new CMFSetup-created site, no one can log in at all. Ever.
Problem: The CookieCrumbler.__call__ method is being registered as
before traverse
On 23 Sep 2005, at 01:29, Tres Seaver wrote:
We could '_setId' on the tool with the 'tool_id' attribute after
creating it, if the tool does not derive from
CMFCore.utils.ImmutableId.
That's what I ended up doing. Fixes and a test checked in.
jens
(Note to the sprinters, mostly)
The SVN trunk is currently broken, and this has to do with
GenericSetup. I get this exception when trying to run a unit test:
*
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/local/zope/opt/Zope-2.8.1/bin/test.py,
Pilot error, false alarm, sorry. I never linked GenericSetup into my
instance products... ;)
jens
On 24 Sep 2005, at 20:09, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
(Note to the sprinters, mostly)
The SVN trunk is currently broken, and this has to do with
GenericSetup. I get this exception when trying
def test_DocView(self):
url = self.doc1.absolute_url_path()
import pdb; pdb.set_trace()
response = self.publish(url, self.basic_auth)
Some stepping around with pdb reveals this:
(Pdb) n
/zope/ZopeSoftwareHome/lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py(101)publish()
-
On 5 Oct 2005, at 23:07, Paul Winkler wrote:
- request, bind=1)
(Pdb) n
NotFound: 'document_view'
The machinery doesn't know which skin is selected I presume. You can
force it by calling changeSkin on the skinnable object manager
(the portal is one) to select a skin path as set up in the
On 11 Oct 2005, at 20:02, yuppie wrote:
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm seeing a bunch of errors and failures when running the unit
tests on
the trunk, in both GenericSetup and CMFSetup (see attached file).
Does anyone have a clue why? I'd
On 11 Oct 2005, at 20:44, Tres Seaver wrote:
Would it be helpful to make DEPENDENCIES.txt a little more specific,
e.g. it would say Zope 2.8 branch after 2005/10/10; Five trunk after
2005/10/07 or something like that?
I was working in a sandbox without its own checkout of Five, which was
the
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
From a first look, I think it will have inserted the name
'index.html' on the view class, so if you type /address/to/link/
index.html then you should get the template.
Tried that, same failure...
bah! Next attempt - I copied an example from Five
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
bah! Next attempt - I copied an example from Five to get started
and it Just Worked, so you must be close!
Should it not be browser:pages rather than browser:view?
And I'm not sure it should have a name=link_view in the
containing definition as that
On 14 Oct 2005, at 08:55, sureshvv wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
I'll work on converting more content types along the same lines
over the next few days on a svn branch.
Can you write-up a brief HOW-TO also please?
There can't be any howto until
On 16 Oct 2005, at 16:21, yuppie wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Doing some more work on Five views for CMF right now. I have the
edit view hooked up and working find for my sample content type.
The view class given to me by Tres defines a POST method, but I
can't seem to get that hooked
On 22 Oct 2005, at 00:27, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just checked in a preliminary pass at viewifying the
'full_metadata_form' (now 'metadata.html' as a view):
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/CMF/branches/tseaver-viewification
I expanded the
On 22 Oct 2005, at 17:23, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 21. Oktober 2005 19:27:38 -0400 Tres Seaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Performance on the view version is nearly twice the classic
version (14.2 ms vs 24.2 ms on my box).
Any idea why the view version is such slow? I thought
There's an outstanding issue in the collector about workflow scripts
that are external methods. Currently, creating a snapshot of a site
with external methods on the Scripts tab of a DCWorkflow will just
blow up. The real question here is: Do we want to support that at
all? Taking a quick
It's been exactly two months today that CMF 1.5.4 was released as the
latest release from the 1.5 branch. A lot of work has been done as
evidenced by the change log.
I'm not sure if it's helpful for the main consumer of CMF releases
(- Plone), but those who develop their own solutions on
On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:02, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having
a beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit
next weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release.
The weekend after
On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:02, Florent Guillaume wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having
a beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit
next weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release.
The weekend after that I'm back in Germany
On 9 Nov 2005, at 15:17, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Does someone have a problem with me doing that in the CMF 1.5
branch? All with tests of course.
Does this have to happen now? Can we compromise, keep it out of 1.5.5
and create a 1.5.6 in a month or so?
jens
On 12 Nov 2005, at 09:04, yuppie wrote:
A CMF 1.6 release that requires Zope 2.8 and essentially bundles
CMF 1.5 with GenericSetup 2.0 (and compatible CMF setup handlers)
might be a good idea.
Yes, that's a good idea. It certainly can't go directly in the
strictly-maintenance 1.5 branch.
On 15 Nov 2005, at 02:56, Rob Miller wrote:
to be fair, AT's (un)indexing code is a mess... i tried to change
the BaseFolderMixin manage_(after|before)* methods so they
explicitly call the PortalFolder implementations and was still
ending up w/ subobject orphans left in the catalog after
On 15 Nov 2005, at 14:24, yuppie wrote:
The notes should be logged *and* used for reporting in the ZMI.
Implementation:
I'm no logging expert, so I might well be missing something. The
state of the art seems to be using the Python logging package (PEP
282). Is it possible to use that
On 16 Nov 2005, at 09:29, Florent Guillaume wrote:
In what environement do people playing with CMF 2.0 (trunk) work ?
Because when used with Zope 2 trunk, there are many failing unit
tests.
I haven't done much that requires running the tests for a while, but
I used to build them with
of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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
On 4 Nov 2005, at 00:18, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having a
beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit next
weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release. The
weekend after that I'm back in Germany
On 20 Nov 2005, at 16:24, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Florent, what are your requirements for the events changes you
wanted to see in 1.5.5 originally? I'm wondering if that's really
1.6 material now that we have a 1.6 branch? Let me know if you
want it in 1.5 and we can plan a 1.5.6 release,
On 21 Nov 2005, at 10:15, Rui Gamito wrote:
Is there a way to import email addresses (newsletter subscribers)
from a
csv file?
I've never tried to import anything other than zexp files, but I've
been
told it was possible, and effortless, using the usual import/export...
Well, it's not
On 2 Dec 2005, at 18:58, yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
import Testing
-import Zope2
-Zope2.startup()
I'm seeing issues in some tests which fail when run outside the full
suite after changes like these. E.g.,
zopectl test CMFDefault
I'm trying to run those tests and seem to come
On 2 Dec 2005, at 18:58, yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
import Testing
-import Zope2
-Zope2.startup()
I'm seeing issues in some tests which fail when run outside the full
suite after changes like these. E.g.,
zopectl test CMFDefault
These issues are not present on the trunk, they are
On 15 Dec 2005, at 10:39, yuppie wrote:
After having a closer look at this I agree that PrettyDocument is
broken because it doesn't respect the 'indent' argument of
toprettyxml() in all places. I have a fix for this in my sandbox,
but svn.zope.org is down.
I just fixed svn.zope.org.
Yvo,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I assume
that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
rev=40364r1=40360r2=40364
I'm in the specific situation
On 20 Dec 2005, at 13:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I
assume that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0
have different ways to register custom type info classes. Before
that change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because
they were merged in an insane way.
I fixed the new
On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to
1.5 as possible, with the exception of GenericSetup. the types
stuff is the greyest area, however, because the changes in the way
TypeInfo objects are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a
On 20 Dec 2005, at 23:32, yuppie wrote:
After reading the thread you mention, which isn't all that clear
when it comes to outlining what the consequences of some of these
code changes are, I'm confused. I think I can boil it down to one
question: What is the use of the CMF 1.6 branch if it
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:14, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Unless someone fixes that CMFDynamicsomethingFTI thing (or the
CMF 1.6 branch) people cannot even attempt to run Plone 2.1 or
2.2 against CMF 1.6. This is like a stalemate. Can you suggest
how to add a new kind of factory information
On 21 Dec 2005, at 12:06, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Starting to look into this myself I just wasted a couple of minutes
because of my outdated setup (I had a plain Zope-2.8.4-final release)
Looking at INSTALL.txt from the CMF-1.6 bundle I found
Requirements
- Zope 2.8.1 or later
...
so I
On 22 Dec 2005, at 17:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I think this brings up the need for a slightly more formalized
planning
and release process. Given the requisite backing by at least the
main
developers (meaning their agreement that they would actually use
On 30 Dec 2005, at 17:17, Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Hi,
I have come to a site setup with CMF 1.3.1
I am asked to migrate it to newer code.
Are there any special things I need to know about before I upgrade
the CMF products ?
No one will have an answer to that one. The only sane
On 2 Jan 2006, at 16:22, Florent Guillaume wrote:
These tests fail on Mac OS X, any similar experience on linux?
Something to do with filesystem accesses...
Hi Florent,
I have to assume your environment is not quite right - the tests run
to completion without any error on my laptop (OS X
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
To make it easier to identify issues deemed a release blocker for CMF
2.0 I have added another classification to the collector, CMF 2.0
release blocker. It is intended for all issues that must be resolved
before CMF 2.0 is released in its final form. It won't be used as a
pool where people
On 11 Jan 2006, at 18:42, Tres Seaver wrote:
I have posted a blog entry,,
http://palladion.com/home/tseaver/obzervationz/2006/
cmf_2_0_update_20060111
summarizing what I think is the current status of the project. Please
comment here on ths list, correcting my mistakes or omissions, as well
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:44, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/12/06, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for dropping Zope 2.8 support
On that, it can be mentioned that for the fiveactions tool, having
both 2.8 and 2.9 support requires quite some work and code
duplication, so I'm +N on dropping 2.8,
On 12 Jan 2006, at 22:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin
customisations. Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g.
overide document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In
fact, I'm -1 on releasing with either limitation, but I
On 13 Jan 2006, at 01:07, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Indeed, when Plone starts depending on CMF 2 (which may happen for
the 3.0 release cycle) we'd look to find a way to make skin/
template-only customisations work TTW (at least I'd push for that);
if that work's interesting to CMF, it may land
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
On 15 Jan 2006, at 16:31, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/11/06, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/11/06, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, the five_actions tool is still completely borked.
CMFonFive 1.3
has the correct one, and today I checked in a fix there, so I
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
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Everyone: I'll be working on this tonight. Please get all
On 16 Jan 2006, at 18:28, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Everyone
On 17 Jan 2006, at 10:44, yuppie wrote:
Work finished, please check out GenericSetup from here now:
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/GenericSetup/trunk
The original proposal also proposed to include it in the CMF via a
svn:external link, see
On 17 Jan 2006, at 16:13, Tres Seaver wrote:
I don't think the burden of maintaining 'svn:external' is worse
than the
burden of maintaining the correct version ID in DEPENDENCIES.txt. I
*want* to distribute GenericSetup with the CMF tarball, in fact,
which
makes 'svn:external' seem the
Hi all,
I will cut the CMF 2.0 alpha this coming Sunday, no matter what. I'll
do as much as I can myself as far as cleanup goes beforehand, but in
order to get it out I'm no longer waiting for others' tasks.
The alpha is *not* the branching point for a 2.0 branch, that happens
when the
On 17 Jan 2006, at 15:39, Tres Seaver wrote:
What do people think, do we want a svn:external or do we want to just
mention it as a requirement in the docs (such as README, INSTALL,
DEPENDENCIES)?
I don't think the burden of maintaining 'svn:external' is worse
than the
burden of maintaining
1 - 100 of 394 matches
Mail list logo