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  -  Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org

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

Reply via email to