On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Clayton Parker wrote:
> That's sort of the way it works right now. Given the number of significant
> differences, and given our desire to keep the zopeskel plone4 buildout
> stylistically aligned with the buildout used in the installers, I'm inclined
> to disagree with making them all work off of one template. The logic in the
> template for plone3_buildout is already pretty twisted, needing to support
> eggified and non-eggified zope, eggified and non-eggified Plone and several
> other branch points. I'm inclined to think that maintaining more--but less
> complicated--templates is easier.
The conditions between 3.2+ -> 4 aren't that bad. But it is true that handling
from 3.0 all the way to current can get hairy. Maybe it is best to keep the
templates separated out, explicit is better than implicit :)
> At any rate, does anyone have the time to help add new or alter existing
> buildout and theme templates to support plone4 in a more explicit way?
Do you want to move forward with making the installer based and zopeskel based
buildouts match up? That shouldn't take too long and it is something that I
Six Feet Up, Inc. | Sponsor of Plone Conference 2010 (Oct. 25th-31st)
Direct Line: +1 (317) 861-5948 x603
Try Plone 4 Today at: http://plone4demo.com
How am I doing? Please contact my manager Gabrielle Hendryx-Parker
at gabrie...@sixfeetup.com with any feedback.
ZopeSkel mailing list