[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-website] Death to the roadmap page?

[JoAnna Springsteen]

> Unfortunately, the situation is *much worse* than Marie indicates, as the
> roadmap page is completely obsolete and outdated since we switched to trac.
> It's more than a bit embarrassing that we link to it from the home page.

You're right Steve, the situation is much worse. Unfortunately we have
a tendency to provide the information that we think people need
instead of addressing what people are saying the need. Marie is a
great example of someone crying out for improvements and specifically
pointing out things we could do better.  I think it would be a good
idea to involve Mark and the marketing team on this. Mark will have a
good idea on how we can better present ourselves and our critical
information to all ranges of users and potential users.

JoAnna

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

[Framework-Team] Death to the roadmap page?

[Steve McMahon]

Hi Framework & Website Teams,

For those of you not following the plone-users list, there's a discussion
that included the fragment:

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Marie Robichon  wrote:

> You have to admit it there is not even a reassurance on the Plone site that
>  the future is going to get easier, or clearer: Take a look at what's
> behind
> the link "Roadmap: Our plans for the future". - if you were new to Plone
> what would you make of the page that's behind this link ? There's no simple
> presentation, no description, no nOOb talk, nor even any 'sales talk' about
> how wonderful the next versions of Plone are going to be.  It's just a list
> of PLIPs, ie the same obscurity that's now everywhere else and that's
> understandable to only a minority.
> ...
>

Unfortunately, the situation is *much worse* than Marie indicates, as the
roadmap page is completely obsolete and outdated since we switched to trac.
It's more than a bit embarrassing that we link to it from the home page.

We should have something better, but meanwhile, what should we do with the
old roadmap page? It may be useful to some as a historical artifact.

Steve
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

Re: [Framework-Team] plone.registry and z3c.form

[Alec Mitchell]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Eric Steele  wrote:
> Following up on the discussion of including these in Plone 4...
>
> The Framework team opinion is that they like them both, and will include
> them in Plone 4, but with the reservation that they wished they'd gone
> through a full PLIP process.
>
> Personally, I'm in favor of including both. I've used plone.registry on a
> project and found it very well done and easy to use. I also like the
> ControlPanelFormWrapper that plone.app.registry provides and would be happy
> to see that make it in too. I'm less convinced about the plone.app.registry
> search form itself. I'd lean towards leaving the registry search as one of
> those undocumented views that people can get to if they really need it, a la
> @@manage-viewlets. I'd like to have that worked on some more in a 4.x
> release and go through full Framework and UI team reviews before making it
> publicly available.
>
> Adding plone.registry and plone.app.registry brings in the following new
> dependencies:
> collective.z3cform.datetimewidget = 0.1a9
> plone.autoform = 1.0b2
> plone.supermodel = 1.0b2
>
> #Required by:
> #plone.app.registry 1.0b1
> plone.app.z3cform = 0.4.6
>
> #Required by:
> #plone.autoform 1.0b2
> plone.z3cform = 0.5.5
>
> #Required by:
> #plone.z3cform 0.5.5
> z3c.batching = 1.1.0
>
> #Required by:
> #plone.app.z3cform 0.4.6
> z3c.formwidget.query = 0.5
>
> If there are no staunch objections to the above, I'll move forward with it.

Won't these requirements come in automatically as we merge those PLIPs
that depend on these packages (provided they are accepted).  I'd
rather we not add these dependencies to Plone until we're certain that
we have code that makes use of them.

Alec

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9258: Replace Products.ATReferenceBrowserWidget with archetypes.referencebrowserwidget

[plip-advisories]

#9258: Replace Products.ATReferenceBrowserWidget with
archetypes.referencebrowserwidget
+---
 Reporter:  tom_gross   |Owner:  tom_gross
 Type:  PLIP|   Status:  assigned 
 Priority:  minor   |Milestone:  4.0  
Component:  Archetypes  |   Resolution:   
 Keywords:  |  
+---

Comment(by alecm):

 I'd suggest you seek guidance from Steve Mcmahon as this would probably be
 a task for jQuery Tools overlay (see #9250).  If you're going to be in
 Budapest for the sprint, perhaps we can have a track dedicated to adding
 nice little jQuery Tools touches to the Plone interface.

 I believe the current reference browser required javascript to function,
 so requiring js is not a major concern.  Apparently, having the form
 inserted into a modal window in the current DOM is better for
 accessibility than a popup.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Plone 
Plone Content Management System
___
PLIP-Advisories mailing list
plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories

Re: [Framework-Team] plone.registry and z3c.form

[Wichert Akkerman]

On 2009-9-25 17:09, Eric Steele wrote:

If there are no staunch objections to the above, I'll move forward with it.


I still object on the grounds that the markup produced by z3c.form is 
too different from standard Plone markup, which means using it in a site 
will complicate theming: themers will have to style two types of form 
markup. z3c.form provides the hooks to fix that, but someone needs to do 
the work.


Wichert.

--
Wichert AkkermanIt 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

[Framework-Team] plone.registry and z3c.form

[Eric Steele]

Following up on the discussion of including these in Plone 4...

The Framework team opinion is that they like them both, and will  
include them in Plone 4, but with the reservation that they wished  
they'd gone through a full PLIP process.


Personally, I'm in favor of including both. I've used plone.registry  
on a project and found it very well done and easy to use. I also like  
the ControlPanelFormWrapper that plone.app.registry provides and would  
be happy to see that make it in too. I'm less convinced about the  
plone.app.registry search form itself. I'd lean towards leaving the  
registry search as one of those undocumented views that people can get  
to if they really need it, a la @@manage-viewlets. I'd like to have  
that worked on some more in a 4.x release and go through full  
Framework and UI team reviews before making it publicly available.


Adding plone.registry and plone.app.registry brings in the following  
new dependencies:

collective.z3cform.datetimewidget = 0.1a9
plone.autoform = 1.0b2
plone.supermodel = 1.0b2

#Required by:
#plone.app.registry 1.0b1
plone.app.z3cform = 0.4.6

#Required by:
#plone.autoform 1.0b2
plone.z3cform = 0.5.5

#Required by:
#plone.z3cform 0.5.5
z3c.batching = 1.1.0

#Required by:
#plone.app.z3cform 0.4.6
z3c.formwidget.query = 0.5

If there are no staunch objections to the above, I'll move forward  
with it.


Eric

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] Final PLIP reviewing and voting

[David Glick]

Maurits van Rees wrote:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:41:34PM -0400, Eric Steele wrote:

On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:


Eric Steele wrote:

FWT!,
It's final review time for 4.0. We currently have 6 PLIPs awaiting   
final review and merge vote:

9186Set Image IDs from Title field
9259Group dashboards
9285Show blocked portlets in management interface
9263GenericSetup syntax for importing Sharing page roles
9272Exposing and editing Dublin Core properties
9305Use real names instead of usernames

What does this mean for the other PLIPs?

- the author hasn't completed required showstopper changes in time?
- the reviewer hasn't reviewed their changes?

I think the CMF add-views PLIP should be ready as well, as mentioned  
on the ticket and this list.


Martin


It means the author hasn't indicated that the PLIP is ready for review/ 
merging or I've managed to completely missed that indication.


#9264 added.


For extra clarity: the above list is just to let the reviewers know
they can cast their final vote for these plips already; plip authors
still have till next Wednesday, 30 September, to finish their plip
improvements.  Right?



Right.  The sooner the better though, so that we can start getting some 
things merged. ;)  I have already updated my review for #9264, so FWT 
folks, vote away!


David

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] Final PLIP reviewing and voting

[Maurits van Rees]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:41:34PM -0400, Eric Steele wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
>> Eric Steele wrote:
>>> FWT!,
>>> It's final review time for 4.0. We currently have 6 PLIPs awaiting   
>>> final review and merge vote:
>>> 9186Set Image IDs from Title field
>>> 9259Group dashboards
>>> 9285Show blocked portlets in management interface
>>> 9263GenericSetup syntax for importing Sharing page roles
>>> 9272Exposing and editing Dublin Core properties
>>> 9305Use real names instead of usernames
>>
>> What does this mean for the other PLIPs?
>>
>> - the author hasn't completed required showstopper changes in time?
>> - the reviewer hasn't reviewed their changes?
>>
>> I think the CMF add-views PLIP should be ready as well, as mentioned  
>> on the ticket and this list.
>>
>> Martin
>
>
> It means the author hasn't indicated that the PLIP is ready for review/ 
> merging or I've managed to completely missed that indication.
>
> #9264 added.

For extra clarity: the above list is just to let the reviewers know
they can cast their final vote for these plips already; plip authors
still have till next Wednesday, 30 September, to finish their plip
improvements.  Right?

-- 
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"Yes, we study economics,
got to make the money make some kind of sense."  - Geoff Mann

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team

[PLIP-Advisories] Re: [Plone] #9258: Replace Products.ATReferenceBrowserWidget with archetypes.referencebrowserwidget

[plip-advisories]

#9258: Replace Products.ATReferenceBrowserWidget with
archetypes.referencebrowserwidget
+---
 Reporter:  tom_gross   |Owner:  tom_gross
 Type:  PLIP|   Status:  assigned 
 Priority:  minor   |Milestone:  4.0  
Component:  Archetypes  |   Resolution:   
 Keywords:  |  
+---

Comment(by tom_gross):

 The PLIP is ready to merge. Thanks for the reviews.

 Another test scenario is the use of atref-widget in collections with path-
 criteria.

 About the funky jQuery stuff I'm unsure.
  - What about users who have turned of JavaScript?
  - I would need help with the jQuery stuff. I never worked with it
 comprehensively.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Plone 
Plone Content Management System
___
PLIP-Advisories mailing list
plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories