Re: [Framework-Team] Re: A suggestion to egg on add-on product authors
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 2010-3-12 19:37, David Glick wrote: >> On 3/12/10 10:22 AM, Bill Campbell wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010, Alexander Limi wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Eric Steele wrote: > On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote: > > Thanks, Jon! I'll take care of this tonight. :) > > Eric > > On second thought, I'll hold off on this until we have installers > available. > Good move. Nothing is more frustrating to people than not having installers >>> Not having uninstallers is high on my list of frustrations. >>> >> Assuming you used the unified installer everything is self-contained, so >> you can just delete the Plone directory it created. > > I suspect he means uninstall support for add-on products. Neither > GenericSetup nor CMFQuickInstaller properly support that. Exactly. This problem isn't unique to Plone. I've seen far too many software products that are not easily removed, often leaving *ecker tracks scattered around a system. The uninstall procedures should (a) remove any objects that belong to that product, (b) undo any changes in Plone that the product made, and (c) remove the product itself. Orphaned objects are unacceptable. On the other side, one thing I haven't seen in Plone 3.x are products that upgrade in place which was common on Plone 2.x. Bill -- INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820 Fax:(206) 232-9186 Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792 In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated. -- Vladimir Putin ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 5 - rough roadmap
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi there, with Plone 4 beta 1 out the door and the 4.0 framework team having done its job, it's time to look ahead into the future a bit. Eric has started the discussion around Plone 4.1 already, I'll let him drive that process :) But I had a look at the PLIP's we have seen and feature discussion we had in the past. Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: - Include plone.app.registry - Include z3c.form - Improved commenting infrastructure - Improving the event type with recurrence, etc. - New roles : Webmaster/site administrator and novice users - Unified interface for lists of content - New collections UI - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) - ... tons of new or better features I think there's lots of good stuff in there. I think with Plone 4.0 as a new technical basis we need some time to make Plone the product better again. Image and media handling, better usability, better support for common tasks, more content lifecycle management, ... there's a lot we can and should do here. Figuring out what exactly should be part of Plone Core won't be easy, but I have a feeling our feature set is lacking behind the competition in various ways now. On the "future" side we have: - Chameleon - Deco / Blocks - Dexterity - WSGI - xdv as the default theming story - deprecate portal_skins - ... I don't want to go into the details of any one of those, but my general feeling is that none of these are anywhere ready to be shipped as part of Plone Core. My current idea would therefor be to aim for a Plone 5.0 release roughly 18 to 24 months after Plone 4.0 final is released. We could aim for 18 months if we only do a 4.1 release, but I assume we are going to do a 4.2 release as well (both taking about 9 months from experience). At that point 24 months is more realistic. That means these technologies and projects will need to evolve outside the core for some time. I'd hope they could bring up some PLIP's for 4.1 and 4.2 which will make their life easier - much like Dexterity has already done with CMF 2.2 and Plone 4.0. Sometimes these might just be events, interfaces and some more adapters to make things independent of Archetypes. Does this kind of roadmap has general agreement? +1 I think that in trying to build the "real" Deco + Dexterity + WSGI publisher + Chameleon + Skins deprecation as add-ons for Plone 4.0 *now*, we'll end up driving features for Plone 4.1. That is, the work for Plone 5 probably starts in parallel with the work for Plone 4.1, i.e. very soon if not already. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: A suggestion to egg on add-on product authors
On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 2010-3-12 19:37, David Glick wrote: On 3/12/10 10:22 AM, Bill Campbell wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010, Alexander Limi wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Eric Steele wrote: On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote: Thanks, Jon! I'll take care of this tonight. :) Eric On second thought, I'll hold off on this until we have installers available. Good move. Nothing is more frustrating to people than not having installers Not having uninstallers is high on my list of frustrations. Assuming you used the unified installer everything is self- contained, so you can just delete the Plone directory it created. I suspect he means uninstall support for add-on products. Neither GenericSetup nor CMFQuickInstaller properly support that. Oh, I see. Yes, that's absolutely something I'd like to see improve. 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 -- David Glick Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x32 davidgl...@groundwire.org http://groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: A suggestion to egg on add-on product authors
On 2010-3-12 19:37, David Glick wrote: On 3/12/10 10:22 AM, Bill Campbell wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010, Alexander Limi wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Eric Steele wrote: On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote: Thanks, Jon! I'll take care of this tonight. :) Eric On second thought, I'll hold off on this until we have installers available. Good move. Nothing is more frustrating to people than not having installers Not having uninstallers is high on my list of frustrations. Assuming you used the unified installer everything is self-contained, so you can just delete the Plone directory it created. I suspect he means uninstall support for add-on products. Neither GenericSetup nor CMFQuickInstaller properly support that. 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] Re: Beta 1 is (essentially) out! FWT, your job is done.
Hanno Schlichting writes: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Laurence Rowe wrote: >> What happened in the 3.x series, I thought the 3.0 team stayed on. > > No. One member of the team stayed on from the 3.0 team for the 3.1 > team. The 3.1 team then stayed the same for the 3.2 and 3.3 releases. > > The main idea here was that the x.0 release requires a huge time > investment and we don't want to stretch the same persons too much. > We've also had some drop-outs from overworked members late in the > process, so we cannot just take the existing team. > > For the "official" process, the secret society of emeritus framework > team members would now put out a call for new applications for the 4.1 > team. This same group will then select the new team. As a formality > the new framework team would then confirm the release manager or > suggest a new one to the Foundation Board. FWIW, if it's not *undesirable* to have FWT members stay on, I'd very much like to continue as a FWT member. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: A suggestion to egg on add-on product authors
On 3/12/10 10:22 AM, Bill Campbell wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010, Alexander Limi wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Eric Steele wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Jon! I'll take care of this tonight. :) >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> On second thought, I'll hold off on this until we have installers >>> available. >>> >>> >> Good move. Nothing is more frustrating to people than not having installers >> > Not having uninstallers is high on my list of frustrations. > Assuming you used the unified installer everything is self-contained, so you can just delete the Plone directory it created. David -- David Glick Web Developer Groundwire 206.286.1235x32 davidgl...@groundwire.org http://groundwire.org ONE/Northwest is now Groundwire! ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: A suggestion to egg on add-on product authors
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010, Alexander Limi wrote: >On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Eric Steele wrote: > >> On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote: >> >> Thanks, Jon! I'll take care of this tonight. :) >> >> Eric >> >> >> On second thought, I'll hold off on this until we have installers >> available. >> > >Good move. Nothing is more frustrating to people than not having installers Not having uninstallers is high on my list of frustrations. Bill -- INTERNET: b...@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820 Fax:(206) 232-9186 Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792 Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep. -- Ben Franklin ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote: > On 12 March 2010 15:07, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: > ... >> - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) > > Just to note that xdv uses the HTMLParser which is really very > tolerant of badly formed markup (an earlier problem with the Nginx > implementation running plone.org is now fixed). The output is > wellformed and forced into the xhtml namespace, though no validation > is performed. The only downside to the HTMLParser is that inline > elements in other namespace (e.g. esi, svg) are not allowed in the > content or template, though they may be included in the rules. That's really good to hear. Though I think "semantic HTML" or "sensible ids/classes" to identify elements in pages is what I had in mind with this point. Well besides the valid XHTML which is a requirement for Chameleon as well. Denys did a heroic job at this already for Plone 4.0. But I expect there's much more to do and especially many more add-ons to fix. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
On 12 March 2010 15:07, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: ... > - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) Just to note that xdv uses the HTMLParser which is really very tolerant of badly formed markup (an earlier problem with the Nginx implementation running plone.org is now fixed). The output is wellformed and forced into the xhtml namespace, though no validation is performed. The only downside to the HTMLParser is that inline elements in other namespace (e.g. esi, svg) are not allowed in the content or template, though they may be included in the rules. Laurence ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap
Hi there, with Plone 4 beta 1 out the door and the 4.0 framework team having done its job, it's time to look ahead into the future a bit. Eric has started the discussion around Plone 4.1 already, I'll let him drive that process :) But I had a look at the PLIP's we have seen and feature discussion we had in the past. Currently listed for Plone 4.x are things like: - Include plone.app.registry - Include z3c.form - Improved commenting infrastructure - Improving the event type with recurrence, etc. - New roles : Webmaster/site administrator and novice users - Unified interface for lists of content - New collections UI - Well formed, valid XHTML (as a foundation for easier theming via xdv) - ... tons of new or better features I think there's lots of good stuff in there. I think with Plone 4.0 as a new technical basis we need some time to make Plone the product better again. Image and media handling, better usability, better support for common tasks, more content lifecycle management, ... there's a lot we can and should do here. Figuring out what exactly should be part of Plone Core won't be easy, but I have a feeling our feature set is lacking behind the competition in various ways now. On the "future" side we have: - Chameleon - Deco / Blocks - Dexterity - WSGI - xdv as the default theming story - deprecate portal_skins - ... I don't want to go into the details of any one of those, but my general feeling is that none of these are anywhere ready to be shipped as part of Plone Core. My current idea would therefor be to aim for a Plone 5.0 release roughly 18 to 24 months after Plone 4.0 final is released. We could aim for 18 months if we only do a 4.1 release, but I assume we are going to do a 4.2 release as well (both taking about 9 months from experience). At that point 24 months is more realistic. That means these technologies and projects will need to evolve outside the core for some time. I'd hope they could bring up some PLIP's for 4.1 and 4.2 which will make their life easier - much like Dexterity has already done with CMF 2.2 and Plone 4.0. Sometimes these might just be events, interfaces and some more adapters to make things independent of Archetypes. Does this kind of roadmap has general agreement? Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Beta 1 is (essentially) out! FWT, your job is done.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Laurence Rowe wrote: > What happened in the 3.x series, I thought the 3.0 team stayed on. No. One member of the team stayed on from the 3.0 team for the 3.1 team. The 3.1 team then stayed the same for the 3.2 and 3.3 releases. The main idea here was that the x.0 release requires a huge time investment and we don't want to stretch the same persons too much. We've also had some drop-outs from overworked members late in the process, so we cannot just take the existing team. For the "official" process, the secret society of emeritus framework team members would now put out a call for new applications for the 4.1 team. This same group will then select the new team. As a formality the new framework team would then confirm the release manager or suggest a new one to the Foundation Board. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Beta 1 is (essentially) out! FWT, your job is done.
On 12 March 2010 01:24, Matthew Wilkes wrote: > > On 2010-03-09, at 0250, Eric Steele wrote: > >> So... now that those bums are out the door, how do we go about appointing >> a 4.x team for me to abuse? > > Well, on a more general note, I think we need a bit better separation > between the 4.x and 5.x teams to avoid conflicts between the needs of 4.x > and 5.0. > > I'm not sure the best way to do that, however, as I'm excited by both > releases. I honestly couldn't say if I'd prefer to be part of the 4.x team > or the 5.0 team if I could only pick one. How do they conflict? I don't want to hold back changes for 5.0, but equally I don't want anything too major in 4.x. My main aim over the 4.x series would be to see the z3cform packages become part of the distribution so we can get p.a.discussion and p.a.registry in. It's also a stepping stone to 5.0. What happened in the 3.x series, I thought the 3.0 team stayed on. Laurence ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
