I don't see much upside to renaming the package. On the other hand, the more core Plone code that's owned by the foundation the better, IMO. If Rob is willing to do the work to get all contributors to sign over their contributions, then it's probably worth pursuing.
Alec On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ross Patterson<m...@rpatterson.net> wrote: > Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> > writes: > >> On 7/27/09 1:38 PM, Rob Gietema wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm currently working on TinyMCE for Plone 4 and would like some >>> feedback on two issues: >>> >>> 1) The current code base is located in the Collective. Since TinyMCE >>> will be the default editor in Plone 4 should I move (copy) the code base >>> to Plone SVN? >> >> -0 >> >> I see no reason to move it. >> >>> 2) I'm currently using the Products namespace for the package. Would it >>> be better to switch to the plone(.app) namespace for Plone 4 (and keep >>> the Products.TinyMCE for Plone 3)? >> >> -1 >> >> There is no benefit to moving, and this will make it harder to >> maintain Plone 3 and 4 trees in parallel. > > I'm -1 to both of these, potential disruption for no benefit I can see. > > Ross > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
