Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: I haven't looked at the code, but why restrict this to those container interfaces alone? Isn't some IContainer or OFS-level interface all that is required? Once the Plone site root is supported, the code likely doesn't rely on any of the AT-semantics. it does. it simply stitches the already existing [iv]Cal support in AT together to become a proper feed. it's really just a very small add-on, started out with some 8 lines of code in the (working) prototype. but i guess some `IContainer` interface might work as well, assuming that we'll see mixed AT/non-AT content soon enough... andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
Andreas Zeidler wrote: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> This however, resulted in a 404. It turned out, that the view was only >> registered for IATFolder and IPloneSiteRoot, but not for `Large Plone >> Folder` >> a.ka. IATBTreeFolder. I took the liberty of `fixing this myself`__ ;-) >> and it >> worked as expected. > > yep, that was indeed a rather silly oversight on my behalf. thanks for > fixing it. I haven't looked at the code, but why restrict this to those container interfaces alone? Isn't some IContainer or OFS-level interface all that is required? Once the Plone site root is supported, the code likely doesn't rely on any of the AT-semantics. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Interesting, that is not how I interpret a +1 at all. To me there are two possible outcomes right now: declare a PLIP ready for merging, or declare it unready for merging for a number of reasons. perhaps to clarify a bit: my +1 actually meant "ready for merging", literally. my last mail was to second that even though some PLIPs may have received +1s there might still be room for improvement (during the revision phase). but that's not a requirement. Example: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt What I mean here is that even if merged as is right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously think that at least the first two points I mention in my review notes would improve things even further. But maybe others have different views on that? With that reasoning in my opion that is a negative for merging right now with those two points as criteria that need to be met before merging later. i don't read it like that. raphael clearly said "if merged as is" he "would consider it OK". of course things can be improved, but i'd interpret that as "no showstoppers found". however, if that's not true, the vote should be different indeed. So... now that the meaning of +1 is suddenly no longer sure, can I please get a list of PLIPs that are ready for merging right now? i don't think that's necessary. we all should know what a +1 means, and that's "ready for merging as is". so unless some team members speaks up or changes their vote accordingly, you may consider all PLIPs that received +2 to be mergeable. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: [...] otoh, all reviewers should have informed the PLIP authors via cc (or at least i hope so!?) so they know about these (minor) issues. as for 246, i'm especially +1 and will comment on your review notes in the next mail... :) heh, gotcha! without a reply with your review notes at hand (neither from tom or you, btw :)), i'm gonna paste them in from the `REVIEW- NOTES.txt` for commenting: Framework team Plone 3.3 review #1 (Tom) [...] This however, resulted in a 404. It turned out, that the view was only registered for IATFolder and IPloneSiteRoot, but not for `Large Plone Folder` a.ka. IATBTreeFolder. I took the liberty of `fixing this myself`__ ;-) and it worked as expected. yep, that was indeed a rather silly oversight on my behalf. thanks for fixing it. [...] Most of the information entered into the event appeared in iCal however, multi-day events should be marked as 'all-day' - but that's actually a limitation of ATCT's .ics implementation and not within the scope of this PLIP. i'd consider this a bug in ATCT and would suggest you create a ticket for it! ;) you may assign it to me, though. From my perspective, there are only two issues remaining: * the cache key doesn't need to include the negotiated browser language since the output, i.e. the ical data, isn't i18n-aware. (i.e. just merge the existing solution to this from `here`__ ) yep, as you've noticed (well, after pointing it out ;)) this has already been fixed in the supplemental `collective.icalfeed` package (which was created to support older version of plone, btw, including 2.5). it also contains support for collections (see below), but i didn't want to start merging things back to the PLIP in the middle of the first review phase. well, i also was too busy anyway... * the calendar view should include the Title and description of the containing folder. Currently this is not the case and iCal defaults to `Untitled` for the title and to an empty description. good one. i'll make sure to add that during the revision phase next week. Framework team Plone 3.3 review #2 (Raphael) I reviewed this under Ubuntu using Sunbird as calendar app. great! this is helpful as i've only tested it with iCal myself. In total I can confirm Tom's observations (but with 'Large Plone Folder' support added in the mean time). Here some further remarks: * I propose to add support for collections (Topics) as well like i said, that's already done in `collective.icalfeed` and will be merged back to the PLIP. * I propose to integrate this closer into the default UI. As of now, you need to manually enter the URL to get the feed. This could be done via a document action with appropriate condition (potentailly trickey and/or expensive). At least one could add the link to the events portlet. as said elsewhere before (or i least i think i have), i'll happily add such a link or action. however, i'd really appreciate a short discussion about this as i've got too little UI expertise myself. perhaps danny and/or alex have a suggestion here? or anybody else too, of course! * Since we offer vCal views in addition to iCal views for individual events it should be straight-forward to offer that as a feed as well. Would that make sense? i think it would. frankly i simply neglected it in the initial prototype (why do the boring stuff? :)) and was too tired the night i tried to wrap up the PLIP in time for the submission deadline. reviewing it i would have suggested the same myself, though. what would be a good way to test this, btw? * I wonder what it would take to enable writing back. Sunbird happily offered me to change the imported events. It even asked me for my password on the Plone site I tested with. While I didn't get any error message nothing changed on the site either. I know this is not the scope of this plip. Just want to ask those who potentially know. i'm not sure how much work it would be, but afaik there are already other packages implementing this. i found at least one while checking for potentially already existing solutions for the ical feed, but not that i'm actually trying to find it again, i can't of course... :) anyway, i think this would be a great feature, but is out of scope for this PLIP. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/fram
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On 2/5/09 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi wichert, On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet. Can I please get a proper report which covers the PLIPs that have been reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. Which I had updated on Sunday http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2009-February/002675.html to include my late coming reviews as well. Regarding a date when the rest will be ready is pure guess work. Of course ASAP - whenever that my be. (I hope to get my last one in tonight or tomorrow). I don't know how other reviewers see this but at least I didn't consider my positive responses in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are entering a second round now: authors picking up on reviewer comments. Interesting, that is not how I interpret a +1 at all. To me there are two possible outcomes right now: declare a PLIP ready for merging, or declare it unready for merging for a number of reasons. There are PLIPs that are fit for merging right now. How would you score those if your +1 has another meaning? Example: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt What I mean here is that even if merged as is right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously think that at least the first two points I mention in my review notes would improve things even further. But maybe others have different views on that? With that reasoning in my opion that is a negative for merging right now with those two points as criteria that need to be met before merging later. So... now that the meaning of +1 is suddenly no longer sure, can I please get a list of PLIPs that are ready for merging right now? 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
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: I don't know how other reviewers see this but at least I didn't consider my positive responses in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are entering a second round now: authors picking up on reviewer comments. +1 Example: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt What I mean here is that even if merged as is right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously think that at least the first two points I mention in my review notes would improve things even further. But maybe others have different views on that? no, not at all. i agree that atm +1 can still mean there are things that might be improved. i suppose we could try to update the status in that regard. otoh, all reviewers should have informed the PLIP authors via cc (or at least i hope so!?) so they know about these (minor) issues. as for 246, i'm especially +1 and will comment on your review notes in the next mail... :) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi wichert, On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet. Can I please get a proper report which covers the PLIPs that have been reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. Which I had updated on Sunday http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2009-February/002675.html to include my late coming reviews as well. Regarding a date when the rest will be ready is pure guess work. Of course ASAP - whenever that my be. (I hope to get my last one in tonight or tomorrow). I don't know how other reviewers see this but at least I didn't consider my positive responses in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are entering a second round now: authors picking up on reviewer comments. Example: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt What I mean here is that even if merged as is right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously think that at least the first two points I mention in my review notes would improve things even further. But maybe others have different views on that? That's what I consider this second round now to be about. Raphael ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review status as of Wednesday: first of all, thank you steve! Reviews Not Yet Completed: 232 (review bundle never submitted) this is not correct, imo. the bundle was submitted late (it was ready, but florian never sent the mail to the list), but the team decided to review it nevertheless. so these reviews are also pending. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail. Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should state why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to do to get them accepted in the next round. this only applies to 234, and its PLIP page contains tom's review notes as well as a link to mine. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
hi wichert, On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet. Can I please get a proper report which covers the PLIPs that have been reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. i don't think we need an "official" update for that — it's only the first round of reviews after all. of course that'll be different for the final deadline, i.e. the on on february 14th. for now PLIP authors have been informed about the status of their respective implementations and should know if there's still work to do. essentially the only PLIP that still needs some atm is 234, and calvin told me before he was going to work through the issues. that said, there are still missing bundle reviews, of course. in particular both reviews for 232 as well as mine for 247. i'd like to apologize for not having submitted it yet. i simply didn't manage to do all six until last friday, after which two unforeseen circumstances essentially took up all of my spare time. i should have asked for help, but tom had already offered it at some point, so i didn't. however, as it turns out he was also overworked and otherwise pressed with time (but can't be blamed for trying to help anyway). anyway, i'll try to turn it in asap, can't really promise anything though. i hope i'll be able to wrap it up tonight, but might be kept from it once more. sorry to be so vague, but some things need to have priority. in the unlikely case anyone from the new team wants to go for a practice run, it'd be much appreciated! :) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: Hi Wichert, Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail. Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should state why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to do to get them accepted in the next round. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
thanks steve, for the summary report! there's only one thing i'd like to point out (or rather make explicit), namely, that: On 04.02.2009, at 17:48, Steve McMahon wrote: [...] PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Review Complete: -2 does not mean, that it is flat out rejected. both reviewers (i.e. andi and myself) have stated, that the current deficits are fixable within the second review phase. AFAIK calvin has already started to work on it, based on our reviews. like i said, i just wanted to state that more clearly to prevent any confusion, cheers, tom ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Final review report
Hi Wichert, Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail. This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review status as of Wednesday: Reviews Complete Accepted: 126, 197, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 246 Rejected: 234 Reviews Not Yet Completed: 232 (review bundle never submitted) 247 (+1 from MJ) Details (complete chart at http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33) PLIP #126: Link type should automatically redirect when accessed directly Review Complete: Based on reading the list discussion: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement Review Complete: +2 PLIP #232: Resource Registries Improvements No reviews yet. PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Review Complete: -2 PLIP #237: Minor i18n upgrades Review Complete: +2 PLIP #238: Disable inline editing by default Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper Review Complete: +2 PLIP #240: Improve locking configurability Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code Review Complete: +2 PLIP #243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet Review Complete: +2 PLIP #246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file Review: +2 PLIP #247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins Review Incomplete: +1 from MJ -- Steve McMahon Reid-McMahon, LLC st...@reidmcmahon.com st...@dcn.org On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > The deadline for the PLIP review report was four days ago. From what I > can see not all reviews are in, and no report has been written yet. > > Can I please get a proper report which covers the PLIPs that have been > reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? > > Regards, > Wichert. > > -- > Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. > http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. > -- Steve McMahon Reid-McMahon, LLC st...@reidmcmahon.com st...@dcn.org ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
