Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > 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. Indeed! 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. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
