On 6 September 2012 15:06, Charlie Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hiya Laurence, > > Am 06.09.2012, 14:46 Uhr, schrieb Laurence Rowe <[email protected]>: > > >> I think the downsides from leaving it out are: > > >> * Another branch of five.localsitemanager to maintain. > > >> * Incompatibility between CMF 2.3 and Zope 4 once the parent pointer >> changes go in. > > > What's the timescale for that? I don't see a problem with 2.3 being tied to > 2.13 and 2.4 being for > 2.13 which I assume Zope 4 is? > 2.3 has a slew of changes throughout.
We're hoping for a Zope4 alpha by the end of the year. I'm currently running CMF 2.2 / Plone 4.3 on my branch with only a couple of minor changes. Its really only the RequestContainer aq rewrapping which causes a problem. With my branch that becomes isolated in five.localsitemanager, which will require a new release for Zope4 anyway. >> Plone is unlikely to make a CMF upgrade until it removes its >> CMFDefault dependency. > > > Please elaborate. The refactoring of CMFDefault broke the Plone tool subclasses. Its no bad thing really, inheriting from CMFDefault doesn't make a lot of sense for Plone, we just need to do the work of moving code around. In any case we need to wait for a Plone 5 before we can upgrade, if CMF 2.4 came in fairly quick succession we could probably just skip 2.3. > >> Laurence >> The main downside to leaving the changes out is the necessity of >> another five.localsitemanager branch to maintain. The changes are >> compatible with CMF 2.2, but it may not play nicely with the > > > Did you hit enter too early? Just a draft I forgot to delete. _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected] https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
