On 12 Feb 2006, at 15:38, yuppie wrote:
I have one comment: While we first worked on CMF 2.0 and later backported some stuff to CMF 1.6 the lists of "new features" are a bit confusing now. I think for CMF 2.0 we should only list changes compared to CMF 1.6. (The CHANGES.txt files are also confusing in this point.)

Yes, I agree. Due to the release timing where in reality they are concurrent and not "1.6 comes before 2.0" I was never really sure where to put things in the various CHANGES.txt files. What I will do tonight is go through and remove all items from the HEAD CHANGES.txt that are already mentioned in the 1.6 branch and thus act like 1.6 really came before 2.0. I think I will also tweak HISTORY.txt on the trunk to reflect the new ordering.

From earlier discussions we have decided to not make them the default for 2.0, which would mean we need a GenericSetup profile to enable them. I would like to be able to get to 2.0.0 final by the end of March at the latest.

I can offer to work on the viewification and merge the branch next weekend if Tres has no time. But I would just add a ZCML file that needs to be enabled to use the views - not a GenericSetup profile. And I will have no time to write unittest.

IMHO the zcml file route is "good enough" as long as something explains how to do it, maybe in a README.

So with this in mind, how does 2 weeks from now sound for the beta?


Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to