Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 11:08 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> I think we all agree on this. In retrospect, it would've been a better
>> idea to push for plone.indexer to be a part of CMF. However, I
>> implemented it driven by Plone's release cycle and feature proposal
>> process, which is why it ended up as it did. *I* want this feature for
>> Plone, but it'd be even better if others could benefit.
> IMHO the release cycle argument doesn't wash. We've always had CMF  
> releases in preparation for important Plone releases, and I'm happy to  
> continue that.

I'm not arguing. I'm saying that it didn't really cross my mind, because 
I was improving something that was already Plone specific (the 
ExtensibleIndexableObjectWrapper) in response to a Plone demand and 
working towards a Plone deadline. Hindsight is a good thing, and maybe 
it would've been better to try to all of it down into the stack. In this 
case, I didn't.

Except that I kind of did... I created a package with no other Plone 
dependencies, in the hope that it *could* be useful. I didn't take the 
time to discuss it on this list, which I should have. However, the 
desire for it to be re-usable by other CMF consumers is clearly in evidence.

>> Of course, it's not too late for that. If the license issue can be
>> overcome (and I'm pretty sure that it will by April/May), then CMF can
>> depend on plone.indexer if it so wants, and I'm willing to help make
>> that possible if it means changing plone.indexer or helping with the  
>> CMF
>> level implementation.
> Thanks, I appreciate that.
> Generally, I think now that the ZF has cleared up the remaining issues  
> about code ownership etc. we finally have two entities, the ZF and the  
> Plone Foundation, that are the perfect platform for "official" issues  
> like code donations, or for coordinating other cooperation issues. I  
> can't judge how the Plone Foundation acts within the Plone community,  
> but as far as the Zope Foundation goes, Martijn has been doing a lot  
> of work to make it more relevant and an important player in the actual  
> software development process.


Bear in mind that the Plone Foundation has an explicit goal *not* to 
interfere with software development. However, it does deal with issues 
of IP and so I agree the two foundations are the right forum for this 
type of thing.

>> In the future, it may be that we can meet in the middle on this. When
>> the PLIP process kicks off, it'd be good if the CMF developers had a
>> look in as well. We should probably be better at announcing the  
>> various
>> deadlines and proposals on this list, but if you guys see something  
>> that
>> you feel would be a good fit further down, it doesn't hurt to raise
>> that, lest the developer hasn't thought about it.
> Is there any kind of low-traffic announcement list for things like  
> PLIPs? I'm not subscribed to any Plone list because of (for me at  
> least) signal to noise ratio fears.

There's plone-announce, but I don't think this was announced there. I 
actually think the Plone release manager should cross-post a few 
important announcements to this list, though.

The actual feature discussion happens on the medium-traffic 
framework-team list, which you can join. In fact, it'd be great if you 
did, as we'd appreciate your input, but I realise it may not be 
something you want to spend a lot of time on.


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See

Zope-CMF maillist  -

See for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to