, accessibility and/or
internationalization experience are especially encouraged to apply.
Regards,
Alec Mitchell
Plone Framework Team (2.5, 4.x)
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy wrote:
>> Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
>> document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
>
> Great work!
Agreed! This has the potential to greatly improve our
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Ross Patterson writes:
>>
>>> Elizabeth Leddy writes:
>>>
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
>>>
>>> +1, though I expected to gather mo
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Elizabeth Leddy wrote:
> Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
> think
> Liz
I agree that the deadline issue isn't a major one, since the release
itself would provide a natural set of deadlines and being pushed to a
later release
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Geir Bækholt wrote:
> On 20-01-2011 16:57, Eric Steele wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to get a final consensus on whether or not PLIP 9327 will be
>> included in 4.1. From discussion last week, several of you wanted to hold
>> out until we knew whether collections and searc
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Ross Patterson wrote:
> Eric Steele writes:
>
>> I'd like to get a final consensus on whether or not PLIP 9327 will be
>> included in 4.1. From discussion last week, several of you wanted to
>> hold out until we knew whether collections and search results would b
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Craig A. Haynal wrote:
> On 10/12/10 8:58 AM, Eric Steele wrote:
>> We have a call scheduled for today. Since we've had all of one new review in
>> the past two weeks, is it still worthwhile for us to get together to talk?
>> Do we have any updates to the PLIPs w
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Alec,
>
> On 21 September 2010 18:33, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>
>> While I agree that it would be worthwhile to promote a canonical space
>> for discussion of the PLIPs and reviews, and that Trac is probably our
&g
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know we have a process that says reviewers should add their notes in text
> files in the review buildout. I think it'd be bad to change the process now,
> but for next time around, can I suggest that we use Trac for all comments,
>
Hi Martin,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Alec,
>
> On 20 August 2010 00:56, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to experiment with making the AT UID() and reference/UID
>>> catalogs use plone.uuid as well. Certainly, that's
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Alec,
>
> On 19 August 2010 09:52, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Though I voted against the inclusion of the UUID PLIP on it's own, if
>> the link-by-uuid PLIP makes good use of it, then it certainly could be
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 09:20, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> On 19 August 2010 06:47, Geir Bækholt wrote:
>>> On 18-08-2010 08.07, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> • 10778 (Stand-alone UUID)
>>>
I think my reason for wanting it in the core, is t
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Eric Steele wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Eric Steele writes:
>>
>>> We've got 30 PLIPs in for 4.1 already
>>> (http://dev.plone.org/plone/report/24), so it's time to get together
>>> and start talking. Can I assume that next Tuesd
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:
> Plone 4.0 is on it's way, and the Plone development team is beginning
> planning for future releases in the 4.x series. Would you like to help
> choose what goes into Plone 4.1, 4.2 ...?
>
> The Plone Framework team is now receiving applicati
I'm in. Any evening or sometime during Friday open space works for me.
Alec
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Eric Steele wrote:
> For those of you in Budapest, I'd like to try to get together for a bit to
> 1) just actually meet you face-to-face
> 2) talk about which sprints we want to promote/
I encourage
everyone to visit the wiki
(http://ploneconf2009.org/program/sprint/budapest-conference-sprint)
and take a look around.
I look forward to seeing everyone in Budapest.
Best Wishes,
Alec Mitchell
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-
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.
Owner was there in Plone < 3.0. IIRC, it was removed because the name
is confusing, particularly since it is redundant with the object
ownership. Granting the Manager role means giving local ZMI rights
and even the ability to e.g. add a local acl_users and create a little
fiefdom, which may not
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eric Steele wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>>
>> Eric Steele writes:
>
> ...
>>>
>>> One thing we need to keep in mind with the PLIP comparisons is that
>>> many of them haven't merged in changes to CMFPlone and other packages
>>> sinc
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Francesco
Ciriaci wrote:
>
> Il giorno 24/ago/09, alle ore 08:56, Alexander Limi ha scritto:
>
> You're a bit late, seeing as the initial deadline was last week. ;)
>
> Well, I'm trying to follow the framework and developers lists but the only
> screenshot with a ne
Hi Francesco,
If you'd like to volunteer to do a UI review of this PLIP or any of
the other UI intensive PLIPs, it could be a big help to our review
process. If so, let us know which PLIPs you'd be interested in
reviewing. Of course if Alex needs your help with implementation,
then your time wou
Hi all,
The SecureMailHost removal PLIP is ready for review.
Alec
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:22:07 -0700, Alec Mitchell
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
On 13.08.09 01:03, Alec Mitchell wrote:
Hello,
I've been working on making Plone use the standard Zope MailHost in
place of the custom Products.SecureMailHost we've
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> On 13.08.09 01:03, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been working on making Plone use the standard Zope MailHost in
>> place of the custom Products.SecureMailHost we've been using since
>>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 8/7/09 12:20 , Ralph Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/7/09 12:13 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm afraid I also don't buy the lookup mechanism mentioned in the PDF:
you are essentialy creating a persist
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:47 AM, David Glick wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
>>
>> i've just tested linkintegrity in a blob-enabled setup (in order to use
>> the traversal adapter from `plone.app.imaging` in a known to work
>> environment, i.e. plone 3.x) and it turns out
I concur that the globalize stuff is a serious hack and should be
removed at some point. However, I don't think 4.0 is the right time
to remove it considering the huge impact it will have on 3rd-party
products. If removing it doesn't result in a significant performance
improvement (and apparently
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Glick wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Erik Rose wrote:
>>
>> Python 2.6, Zope 2.12 (https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8808):
>>
>> * David ported the migration procedure to GS and moved it into
>> plone.app.upgrade. Ran a migration from a stock Plone 2.5
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
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Laurens ., wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> My proposal included:
> - adding location.
> - cutting out relevance.
> - improving search in current section.
> - sorting.
> - unified listing as in PLIP 9327.
>
> Geir added:
> - real human names, which has become PLIP 9305.
> - e
re Monday, someone else needs to do it.
> (feel free). Sorry abut the delay.
>
> --
> Geir Bækholt
> (iPhone)
>
> On 2. juli 2009, at 18.52, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Hello Geir and Laurens:
>>
>> Both of your search results PLIPs (9271, 9282) were approved b
competing implementations of the same feature(s) submitted for code
review. It is essential that you open a discussion and work together
to merge your efforts. Please keep the Framework Team apprised of the
results of your discussion by re-submitting a single combined PLIP
ASAP.
Thank you,
Alec Mitchell
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
> "Alexander Limi" writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:02:02 -0700, Alec Mitchell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The idea is to ensure everyone on the team who wants can get threaded
>>> updates on
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:17:57 -0700, Eric Steele wrote:
>
>> * We have 57 PLIPs to evaluate, more than any previous version of Plone
>> (we're told), with less time than any other major release. #$&@!
>
> I will just observe that:
>
> a) Thi
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Alec Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:32:19 -0700, Martin Aspeli
> wrote:
>
>> - We use this PLIP review cycle to start assigning PLIPs to 4.1. There's
>> no reason we can't and shouldn't start planning for that now. So, if a PLIP
>> looks like it'll take
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 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,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Where and how to manage PLIP's is both a matter of a defined process
> and some software supporting this process.
>
> One of the main driving reasons to move all Plone Core development
> related information into Trac, was to have o
I'm in agreement that the plone.org system is preferable; however I
think it's probably a little late to change this. It does seem like
the "PLIPs" submitted so far are mostly unstructured feature requests.
Even the better ones are pretty minimal.
Alec
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Matthew
W
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Eric Steele wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Jun 2009, at 03:56, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote:
>>
>>> Based on the responses, generally folks are available Monday and Tuesday
>>> at 2:00PM US/Eastern time. This works for me, how
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Calvin
Hendryx-Parker wrote:
> Here is the link we used to start this process:
>
> http://www.doodle.com/ucb3w2fcqieken28
>
> Based on the responses, generally folks are available Monday and Tuesday at
> 2:00PM US/Eastern time. This works for me, how about the rest?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Eric Steele wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by Friday
>
> There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we pare
> this down to a list of 7 people?
>
> We currently have responses of:
> availabl
I agree with what appears to be majority opinion here – that this
release should be called Plone 4.0. Whatever expectations people
might already have regarding Plone 4.0 can be easily managed.
I'd like to stand up for "my" release a little, since people seem to
be implying it was some sort of exp
I just want to note that I'm willing to make releases of Plone 2.5 to
fix truly critical bugs and security issues, provided those fixes
aren't too invasive (e.g. the most recent round of CSRF fixes are not
really feasible for incorporation into 2.5). If that is "supported",
then consider it suppor
Is it really that much work to fix the ui for starting an edit? I
think there are a lot of people who like this feature, but are
frustrated by the UI. Disabling it does nothing to fix that though,
it's just another regression to work around what many consider a real
UI bug.
Alec
On Tue, Oct 28,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:51 AM, David Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 10:55 PM, Alexander Limi wrote:
>
>> Hi Framework Team,
>>
>> On behalf of Andreas Zeidler, I'd like to offer up the following PLIP for
>> your consideration for Plone 3.3:
>>
>> http://plone.org/product
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>> Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>>
>>> - Create a "site wide" portlet category for portlets that should show on
>>> all pages (unless blocked). Currently, people have to use contextual
>>> po
I'll be in D.C. and would attend the meeting on whichever day it may be held.
Alec
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>> Previously Tom Lazar wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> steve,
>>>
>>> that's an excellent idea!
>>>
>>> can we do a quick 'sh
203: Manage portlet assignments with GenericSetup (Martin Aspeli,
>Geir Baekholt)
> #204: Manage content rules using GenericSetup (Martin Aspeli)
> #205: Flexibility Associating Portlet Types and Portlet Managers (George
> Lee)
> #207: Allow Custom Portlet Managers (George L
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:29 AM, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Graham Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > From: Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: 26 February 2008 23:46:24 GMT
> > > To: George Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: framework-
I merged PLIPs 208 and 217 tonight. The following changes were made:
* The plip208 branch of borg.localrole was merged into trunk
* borg.localrole was added to the 3.1 branch of ploneout
* A migration and procedural GS import step were added to CMFPlone 3.1
branch, along with tests
* A minor fix
Hi Team,
I've got a buildout for the local roles PLIP (208) ready:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip208-localroles
It includes branches of borg.localrole and a branch of PlonePAS that
installs the borg.localrole plugin in place of the default one. In
the course of my testing and creat
There are no tests and there's a fatal bug (queryAdapter instead of
queryMultiAdapter, and no interface to adapt to specified). I will of
course be looking at it, at the very least for inspiration, when I
prepare the bundle tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder.
Alec
On Jan 12, 2008 7:27 AM, Alan R
On Dec 19, 2007 1:07 PM, Martijn Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 1:36 AM, Laurence Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Inspired by Alec's plip #217, I'd like to propose making workflow
> > history/status storage fully pluggable.
> >
> > http://plone.org/products/roadmap/221
> >
On Dec 19, 2007 2:54 PM, Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 9:42 PM, Martijn Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As you can see from the 3.1 release schedule as set by Wichert, the
> >> framework team has set itse
On Dec 14, 2007 10:12 AM, Florian Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:00:43 +0100, Alec Mitchell
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 2007 5:36 AM, Florian Schulze
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14
On Dec 14, 2007 8:44 AM, Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Alec Mitchell wrote:
> > Hi framework team members,
>
> hi framework team pioneer,
>
> > A couple more PLIPs to keep you guys busy:
>
> thank you very much. :)
On Dec 14, 2007 5:36 AM, Florian Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:37:14 +0100, Alec Mitchell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007 9:27 AM, Florian Schulze
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi Framework Team!
On Dec 14, 2007 7:56 AM, Malthe Borch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so, while i also like the idea, i'm not too sure if plone should ship
> > with it. i'd agree with martin we should discuss and think this through
> > a little further. nevertheless, i don't see why the plip wouldn't be
> > accep
On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 AM, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Alec Mitchell wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2007 9:27 AM, Florian Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Framework Team!
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the other
Hi framework team members,
A couple more PLIPs to keep you guys busy:
Adapterized local role lookup (borg.localrole):
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/208
Adapterized workflow lookup:
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/217
Feedback appreciated.
Alec
___
On Dec 12, 2007 9:27 AM, Florian Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Framework Team!
>
>
> This is the other PLIP I want to propose besides #213. Martijn did all the
> hard work for it already.
>
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/212
Just a comment from a non-FT member. I think the wo
On Dec 12, 2007 7:18 AM, Encolpe Degoute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman a écrit :
> > My personal non-framework team opinion:
> >
> > Previously Encolpe Degoute wrote:
> >> I'd like to see the following for 3.1:
> >>
> >> #196: GroupUserFolder removing
> >>
> >> There were and there
On 4/3/07, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> - Wicked
>> - Needs to use createObject?type_name=Document — the way it is
>> set up now, anything spidering the site with credentials will
>> create objects, and any object clicked will
Franco Carinato, and to a lesser extent Rosario Di Somma, looked at it
a bit during the sprint. I'm not sure how feasible it would be for
them to help get it into a usable state in the near future though. We
really missed spliter at the sprint.
Alec
On 4/3/07, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 4/3/07, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
some comments on this list, based on current status.
...
> - Combine delete confirmation page with integrity checking
> (having to say yes/no on two separate pages sucks :)
Needs to happen soon or becomes 3.5 material.
On 3/25/07, Hanno Schlichting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Alexander Limi wrote:
> Could we please remove PloneErrorReporting from Plone 3.0?
+1, as the current official maintainer I took the liberty to remove it
from the release and the bundle. One stupid thing less to take care of :)
Hann
It's a fundamental HTML form issue. No matter what the name of the
field (e.g. even if it has a ':boolean'), if the checkbox is not
checked then the input is not included in the request (so the value
won't be changed). It may be possible to use a hidden field with a
False value, so that somethin
On 3/10/07, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geir Bækholt · Plone Solutions wrote:
> On 9. mar. 2007, at 17.22, Laurence Rowe wrote:
>
>>> I would vote for keeping the base tag anyway, as it would make the
>>> site not break if someone makes a wrong link somewhere.
>>> Another possibility
On 3/8/07, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Previously Alec Mitchell wrote:
> On 3/8/07, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> - Consider some kind of compitability alias mechanism, so that when
> >> people keep using get
On 3/8/07, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Consider some kind of compitability alias mechanism, so that when
> people keep using getToolByName(context, 'portal_types') we translate
> that to getUtility(ITypesTool), for as long as we need to (but still
> warning).
+1... I mean chrissakes..
On 3/7/07, Rocky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 6, 9:05 am, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Rocky Burt wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:52 am, "Alexander Limi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - TypesTool in CMFCore - adding the threadlocal cache makes that part
> > > close to t
As one who compulsively clicks and highlights things while reading
them, I'm very much against single click edit. :-) Then again, ui
decisions shouldn't be made based on the idiosyncrasies of weirdos
like myself.
Alec
___
Framework-Team mailing list
F
I'm +1 for keeping 3.0 on trunk until the RC phase at least. People
wanting to do feature development post-freeze can do so on branches.
Alec
On 2/26/07, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on keeping it until the release (or the RCs at the very least)
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:54:07 -0
On 1/10/07, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alec Mitchell wrote:
> On 1/10/07, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alec Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> <--SNIP all the discussion about five.intid-->
>>
>> > Instead, why not make a sim
On 1/10/07, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Whit,
>
> On 1/10/07, whit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > I'm toying with the idea of introducing five.intid as a dependency for
>> > Plone 3. Whit is responsible for this creation, s
On 12/10/06, Justizin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/10/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Limi wrote:
> > Breakdown of document_view shows (same order/units as above):
> >>> path: plone_view/globalize 0.232 10 0.0232
> >> path: plone_view/globalize 0.4314 1
On 11/14/06, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:14:38 -0800, Martin Aspeli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is some portlets BBB stuff for people with main_template
> customisations that make globalize do slightly silly things. We could
> probably cut that out if w
On 11/5/06, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did a quick review of PLIP 178. This is based purely on the output
from:
svn diff -r 11240:HEAD \
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/CMFPlone/branches/plip178-back-to-icons-as-images
which gives you a list of all changes from the trunk.
Looks like somebody tried to make the actbox_url in the workflow
transitions get utilized without handling the existing default values
(which point to non-existant forms).
Alec
On 10/13/06, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Try clicking State -> Publish on the front page on a fresh 3.0
On 10/5/06, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Previously Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:53:06 -0700, Wichert Akkerman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > PLIP 168 - integrate iterate for checkin/checkout/staging
> >
> > Viewing a locked front page gave an error until t
On 9/25/06, Helge Tesdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Overview
===
PLIP145 Locking
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/145
2. Test setup
=
I wasn't actually able to test the review bundle now with Zope 2.10 from
SVN, so I'm basing this review on the demonstration during
On 9/25/06, Helge Tesdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Overview
===
PLIP168 Iterate provides in-place staging in Plone for improved editing of
published content.
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/168
2. Test setup
=
This was tested with Zope 2.10 from SVN and the revie
To say these sites are "compromised" is a bit extreme. People who
were allowed to create profiles (i.e. this only happens to sites where
anybody can join) could take advantage of a minor XSS vulnerability to
seed google requests. Additionally there was a apparently more common
avenue of attack f
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed. My feeling is that GS has some evolution to do before it's
truly a solid replacement for what we currently do (which grantely
isn't so solid) - maybe we're just replacing one set of design
problems with another; not because GS is badly
On 9/13/06, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wichert Akkerman schrieb:
> Previously Alec Mitchell wrote:
>> It's not possible to start Plone if PIL is not installed currently
>> (due to the member image fix). PIL is included in all the installers
>>
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> > As I said, I'm still wary of using GS as the main install mechanism,
> > even if the quickinstaller can now find them thanks to Hanno. The
> > uninstall question is still unresolved as far as I can see, in cases
> > where you need cust
On 9/13/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the summary, Raphael,
> 1. try by any means to support the "old" behavior (maybe
> the fti registering could be done by AT's process_types
> instead of CMF's ContentInit (I might actually try that
> - time permitting)
>
> 2. Switch
On 9/12/06, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:34:33 -0700, Alec Mitchell
wrote:
> We need to make sure that it can be easily disabled in case the
> performance overhead of using Sessions is too much for some
> applications.
Does anyone hav
On 9/12/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys,
So, prepare yourselves. :) I'm going to try to break down the Bling and
KSS conundrum in a few different sections below. I think it's important
that we think through these issues, and that we get some debate going
fairly quickly. This
On 9/12/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I don't see any objections to merging it. The security benefits
> certainly make it a good idea.
+1 from me as well - I've needed this in the past, and I don't think
people quite understand the implications of Sessio
On 9/12/06, Helge Tesdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3:12 pm 09/12/06 Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think a dependency is probably OK, even though it would annoy me to
> have to do it for all development instances. The swinger for me is
> the recent security problems that we've h
On 9/12/06, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
> Hello from the St. Augustin sprint :)
>
>
cheers from Berlin to all of you ;-)
(I wish I could be there ...)
> [..]
>>- Is it really necessary for AT/ATCT to still use the deprecated
>> "manage_*" hooks inst
On 9/12/06, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello again,
this is just a service to those of you who do not follow the svn/plone
commits ;-)
2006-09-12 Raphael Ritz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
My test set-up: Python 2.4.3, Zope 2.10.0b2 release on Linux (FC5)
First impression: excellent w
On 9/3/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys,
Since we need to get going, I thought I'd start with an easy one.
1. Overview
===
PLIP144 - Generalised Next/Previous Navigation, aims to make it easier
to navigate between items in a folder. The typical use case is a folder
On 9/2/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://azax.ree.hu/documentation/development-process-with-kss
From Balazs and Godefroid, many thanks! This is a pretty short document
describing a real-world example of development with KSS.
It's probably good if we all read this and form som
On 9/1/06, Alexander Limi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:52:21 -0700, Encolpe Degoute
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our team wishes to highlight PLIP 154 as we think it is nearly
> implemented by FileSystemStorage + AttachmentField (still SVN).
By the time Plone 3.5 ships, it'
On 8/22/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/117 (AJAX dep)
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/116 (AJAX dep)
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/163 (AJAX dep)
> http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/124 (AJAX dep)
All of the
On 8/9/06, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Now that Wichert has been officially selected as release manager (and I
> whole-heartedly endorse that decision, he is a great choice), I'm wondering
> what that means for us.
The fact that I'm supposed to b
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
