Previously Martin Aspeli wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > We need to get Plone 3.2 and 3.3 on the road. Contrary to previous > > releases I am not going to produce a complete schedule for the whole > > release process this time around - we've seen too often that those > > schedules keep changing anyway. Instead I'll keep planning the next two > > steps in the process for each release. > > That sounds like a good idea. > > > Lets start with Plone 3.2. This release will be a maintenance release > > for Plone 3.x in all aspects except packaging technology: it will be > > fully egg based. The first two steps for this release are: > > > > * egg releases of all components ready before October 1st > > * first alpha release during the Plone Conference > > We also need to determine what we do with existing eggs that have > dodgy/missing dependencies, and whether or not we can make > plone.recipe.plone optional (or just a dumb wrapper around zc.recipe.egg).
We already have some suggestions and discussion on that and I have a local git tree which tries to solve a lot of this. I'll commit that back to svn after my vacation in a few weeks. > > For Plone 3.3 we will start with a round of PLIP previews, during which > > the framework team can provide a verdict on the desirability of proposed > > PLIPs. The criteria are correct technical design, correct user interface > > design, and the need merge the PLIP in core instead of maintaining or > > maturing it as an add-on. The dates are: > > > > * PLIPs to be submitted before October 5th > > * framework team gives verdict on all PLIPs before October 20th > > I assume this is about PLIPs in principle, rather than code/bundles? > > I think we need to give people a bit more time if we're talking about > code, especially since we want people to help with the 3.2 work (and > testing!) as well. This is not about code at all, it is about deciding early on if the PLIPs are desirable and correct so we can immediately inform the PLIP authors. I don't want people working very hard at a PLIP when we already know that it will not be accepted or that it will need to be changed. > > The planning is geared around the Plone conference; I am hoping that the > > framework team will be able to take schedule one or more discussions > > there to discuss these PLIPs, if possible with the PLIP authors present. > > That's a good idea. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be nice to > give people a chance to come up with and work on PLIPs during the > post-conference sprint. In the past, we've seen a spike in PLIPs around > sprints as people focus on one thing or another. > > I think it'd make sense if the current Framework Team could decide > whether they'd prefer to have the PLIP deadline, say, on the Friday > following the conference (October 17th) with this in mind, or if they > would benefit more from having time to discuss PLIPs at the conference > and thus keep the deadline for the 5th. There is always a reason to wait for another date. I think a lot of people are coming up with ideas while preparing / psyching up for the conenference, so this schedule makes sense to me. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
