On Feb 22, 11:06 am, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > > Right, my oversight. I believe the issue can be boiled down to "the > > existing CMF site needs to be turned into a Zope 3 'site' and have a > > site manager"? Or are there more issues? > > None I'm aware of.
There will be a convenient api call for this... something like in five.localsitemanager.make_objectmanager_site. If all that needs to happen is to make a cmf site an ISite that five.localsitemanager likes. Of course @@components.html's makeSite will do the equivalent. > >> In general I'm no fan of last minute merges. There should be several > >> days between merging a big branch like that and releasing a beta. > > > I don't think I agree. We're only talking about a beta, the first beta. > > Very few people will test it when it's just in SVN. One huge advantage > > of being in lockstep with Plone is the fact that you get a whole bunch > > of beta testers "for free" which you would never have for a CMF release > > that is not distributed with a Plone release. > > I'm not against a new release that can be shipped with the next Plone > 3.0 milestone. I just feel uncomfortable with the label 'beta'. The last > time I checked the utility branch didn't feel like 'beta'. For me a "beta" doesn't have to be more or less stable than an "alpha". The important bit for me is that a "beta" should be feature complete whereas an "alpha" does not. So if the branch is feature complete (within reason, I understand if very small features are required to fix an as-yet-unidentified bug), I say it's good enough for "beta". On a different note ... which branch/trunk should I integrate the five.localsitemanager changes? Keeping in mind that on my part it's *mostly* just an svn:externals change. - Rocky _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
