Hi Hanno,
Well, I really hate having default content around, that I have to
delete all the time and people use in tests that later on break if we
change it. The initial content just won't make sense for many sites
and people waste huge amount of times to try to get the initial
content to match
Joel Burton wrote:
Hello, Framework Team!
A lot of very sensible things were said in this thread.
I have two concerns:
1) We shouldn't let 4.0 be the excuse to let trunk languish
indefinitely. There are important, innovative things we want to do there
(like Deco and Tiles) that we need to
Eric Steele wrote:
I have little to add to what Hanno and Martin have stated so well
here. To me, what shortcomings the Trac-based approach may have are
trivial enough for me to largely overlook and can be covered through
some further integration work by the plone.org team and/or better
docu
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 16:01 -0700, Alec Mitchell wrote:
> I for one would really appreciate if you could provide some of your
> insight on some of the current 4.0 PLIPs. You have incomparable
> breadth of knowledge and insight regarding what aspects of Plone are
> heavily, popular or even despised
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, David Glick wrote:
> - The current situation with regard to PlacelessTranslationService needs to
> be reviewed to make sure that our language negotiator and product i18n dirs
> are still getting registered properly following simplification/removal of
> Five's Zope2
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 05:54:17PM +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > +1 to make Plone all unicode, all of the time. I defer to Hanno, though.
>
> There's quite a number of interesting implications with this, for
> example what is getting c
Joel,
I for one would really appreciate if you could provide some of your
insight on some of the current 4.0 PLIPs. You have incomparable
breadth of knowledge and insight regarding what aspects of Plone are
heavily, popular or even despised (particularly among people who are
not necessarily activ
On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Eric Steele wrote:
I already have a calendar started. I'll work on getting that filled
out, published, and publicized ASAP.
actually, PLIP #246 was meant to introduce the possibility to set up
the "plone calendar" using plone.org itself: keeping all relevant
d
Alec Mitchell writes:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Matthew Wilkes
>> writes:
>>
>>> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>>
>
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forw
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
> Matthew Wilkes
> writes:
>
>> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
>>> feautres,
>>> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
>>> Zope,
Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put th
On 20 Jun 2009, at 20:54, Laurence Rowe wrote:
So if your PLIP isn't ready now, don't worry. There'll be another
chance to get it in with 4.1
With the usual caveat that 4.x releases are as ambitious as 3.x
releases. The reason we need a 4.0 release is so we can put the
things Laurence m
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Personally I'd be in favor of extending the scope of Plone 4.0 to some
degree and making a clear commitment to allow quite a number of the
suggested features to be done in the scope of Plone 4.1, 4.2, ...
releases. Much of the work that makes up Plone trunk (5.0?) today i
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new feautres,
> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
> Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
> least to my outsider's eyes
Matthew Wilkes
writes:
> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
>> feautres,
>> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
>> Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
>
On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
feautres,
mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
Zope, Python, CMF)? Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
least to my outsider's eyes.
Hmm,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joel Burton wrote:
> Hello, Framework Team!
>
> I, myself, don't have any questions or issues about the PLIP deadline
> for 4.0. I'm not planning on submitting any PLIPs.
>
> Over the past two weeks, though, while chatting in IRC with various
> frame
Joel Burton writes:
> I don't know what the discussion was like in deciding on this date. It
> may still be the right decision to have it end now. I'm just
> suggesting that, if it seems that quite a few people may think that
> this is a slightly-too-soon date, that you may benefit from having
>
Hello, Framework Team!
I, myself, don't have any questions or issues about the PLIP deadline
for 4.0. I'm not planning on submitting any PLIPs.
Over the past two weeks, though, while chatting in IRC with various
framework team members and other core Plone people, at least 5 have
mentioned, withou
FWT!
We have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, June 23 at 2PM EST
(1800 UTC). The Foundation Board has given me the go-ahead to try out
some different international conference calling solutions in an
attempt to avoid the Skype debacle that was our last meeting.
I've set up a meetin
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> - c20188, c20190, c23197 — removal of PloneFolder (hannosch) — need to
>> double check whether this requires a migration for any persistent objects,
>> and write that if necessary
>
> +0 to remove.
There's no persistent stuff based on tha
On Jun 18, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
...
I wrote a big reply to Matt, and ditched it. +100 to everything you
said. :)
I'd suggest that:
a) We now formally ask PLIP authors to write to the plone-dev list
(not this list!) announcing their PLIPs and
Hi David,
Hello! I'm hoping to give an update on my work this past week and get
some feedback on whether I'm heading in the right direction.
I suspect you are. ;-) And let me just say I, for one, am really
grateful you're doing this.
As some of you may have noticed, I've been working on a
23 matches
Mail list logo
