Re: [Framework-Team] Reworking the PLIP Lifecycle | discussion

On 2/26/11 9:22 PM, Ross Patterson wrote: Alec Mitchell writes: 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

Re: [Framework-Team] Fwd: Re: [Plone] #9288: Improved commenting infrastructure

Timo Stollenwerk wrote: > Hi, > > Elizabeth came across a problem with p.a.discussion during her PLIP > review: Authenticated users are currently not able to post a comment, > they need the "Member" role to do so. > > Do we also want authenticated users to be able to post comments? Shall > we just

Re: [Framework-Team] New releases in the Plone 3.3 series

On 10/5/10 9:46 PM, Geir Bækholt wrote: > The Plone 3 series has run for a longer time than anticipated, but there > is still a demand for new releases. > Our awesome release manager, Wichert, has, after a long series of > successful releases, stated that he unfortunately doesn't have the time >

Re: [Framework-Team] changing name of plone.app.event?

Andreas Jung wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > plone.app.calendar is even more misleading since plone.app.event > provides only the event core implementation but not calendar > functionality (or?). I think plone.app.event is fine since Plone > developers know of ATEvent a

Re: [Framework-Team] Zope 2.13 PLIP ready for review

Laurence Rowe wrote: > [..] > > While I would like to see Python 2.7 compatibility in a later Plone > 4.x release, I would be uncomfortable requiring it during the 4.x line > without very good reason I don't think anyone suggested *requiring* it still it would be nice to *support* it - at least in

Re: [Framework-Team] Zope 2.13 PLIP ready for review

Hanno Schlichting wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Alexander Limi wrote: >> Do we expect Plone 4.1 / Zope 2.13 to be using Python 2.7 by default? (makes >> sense to me, but not sure if it has other implications that I'm unaware of) > > See > http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/buildouts/plo

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 4.1 Framework Team Meeting Minutes– 17 August, 2010

Martin Aspeli wrote: > [..] > > I wrote the PLIP because I'm uncomfortable with the status quo. People > end up making their own half-solutions, e.g. using their own counters, > physical paths (which are not stable), keeping their own BTrees of > content, using zope.intid or faking up the UID() met

Re: [Framework-Team] [Plone-developers] Upcoming Plone 4.0 releases

David Glick wrote: >> [..] > If I recall, the main risks are that the migration may take a long > time, and that the admin may not have properly configured blob-storage > in their buildout. The migration itself is pretty well-tested, at > least under Plone 3 -- Groundwire has migrated dozens of

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 5 - rough roadmap

Laurence Rowe wrote: [..] I don't think we'll persuade libxml2 to implement it the as xhtml output until the standard is finalised, it's already been changed from in the last few months. More on this here. http://www.contentwithstyle.co.uk/content/xslt-and-html-5-problems I'm probably mi

Re: [Framework-Team] Notes from Joel on simplifying Plone

Jon Stahl wrote: Hi FWT! Hi Jon, thanks for posting this! For now just one comment from my side: [..] - The "apache-style" buildout.cfg file is inherently intimidating to new site developers. At first, they just want any easy way to install add-on products. We used to have that -- jus

[Framework-Team] #9310 got a baby (#9347)

Hi, responding to our comments Duco has just broken out the user registration policy part from PLIP #9310 into #9347. So we have now http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9310 "User registration process more flexible" only covering flexible member data and http://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/9347 Re

[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP Change Mailing List

Martin Aspeli wrote: Steve McMahon wrote: All the 4.0 PLIPs now have plip-advisor...@lists.plone.org in the CC list. If you want to subscribe, visit: http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plip-advisories Most were added in the last few minutes, s

Re: [Framework-Team] [Plone 4] Framework team, let's talk...

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? Sould be OK on my side as well

[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies

Wichert Akkerman wrote: I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible. So that means Zope 2.12 instead, right? Do we have an estimate of what that implies on our side? Generally speaking, I'm a bit unc

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] The new Plone 4.0

Alexander Limi wrote: On Sat, 09 May 2009 05:09:07 -0700, Martin Aspeli [..] We'd also need to find a way to not break all existing themes. It will "break" (ie. slightly change) themes that reuse parts of the original Plone CSS as part of their theme. Luckily, the fix is easy: make a

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

Eric Steele wrote: Since the new Plone 4 is looking like, essentially, a "transitional" release, another possibility would be to pull its framework team members from each of the currently-existing teams. I'm with Eric here and offer to participate from the Plone 3 FWT side. Raphael Er

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.5

[Do we really need to discuss this on three lists?] Martin Aspeli wrote: JoAnna Springsteen wrote: The idea is also to catch up with our platforms (Zope 2, Zope 3, CMF) as we're starting to look a bit out of date on Zope 2.10 + Zope 3.3 + CMF 2.1. What's the significance of 3.5? Why can't this

[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.5

Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi. While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the current stable 3.x releases and the future. The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a Plone 3.5 rel

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting

Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi Calvin. Thanks for taking the initiative here. I'll not gonna make it to todays tune-up nor the conf call, though :( Same for me :-( But I'm delighted to see this happening. [..] In my dual role of release manager and major code contributer I have payed to

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP merges

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Now that the final reviews are in it's time to start merging. I disagree with the framework team results on one item: PLIP 243 is not ready for merging. It still suffers from a problematic unicode decore error that I have not been able to fix, and which must be solved befo

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 review: the final verdict

. Raphael I see the following lists 2/14 as the final deadline on the schedule: http://plone.org/support/forums/announcements#nabble-td1490066 Thanks! Andrew On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Raphael Ritz mailto:r.r...@biologie.hu-berlin.de>> wrote: Summary of reviews for Plone

[Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 review: the final verdict

Summary of reviews for Plone 3.3 as of 2009-02-15 = In short: all submitted PLIPs are ready for merging That's really great and once more thanks to all who contributed! Specifically, we were dealing with the following: PLIP 126 - links redire

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #246 ready for review (pending review notes)

Graham Perrin wrote: [..] 1. Please, for test purposes, can anyone provide a well populated folder of events? 2. If not Calendaring + p4a.plonecalendar then can we suggest any other route to .ics import? Hi Graham, thanks for testing this. Please note that this PLIP isn't about impo

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] i didn't mean to imply that not having more tests is a strict showstopper. please don't get me wrong here. i do appreciate calvin's work and all the fixes he put in to finally make this feature work. hunting the bug must have been cumbersome enough... however,

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions

Martin Aspeli wrote: [..] FWIW, I think much of Calvin's work could've gone into a 3.2.x release as bug fixes. If he doesn't break tests, and writes a few tests for truly new code, then I think that's probably sufficient in most places. Personally, I agree with the sentiment that this is most

Re: [Framework-Team] second round of PLIP reviews

Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi, i've just had a look at the updates for all the PLIPs i originally reviewed and sent some comments. i won't be available for any further discussion as well as the ultimate counting etc, though, as we're leaving for vacation tomorrow. i'd appreciate if someone f

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 tha

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP Bundle Review Status

Steve McMahon wrote: This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review status as of Saturday: Thanks for this Steve! I'll take the liberty to update this as we move on. Raphael *Reviews Complete * Accepted: 197, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, and now 243 and 246 as well Reje

[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #126 ready for review

Andrew Burkhalter wrote: [..] Just for the record, this was broken for a brief time on our branch due to some jostling around of language, but was resolved in the following changeset: http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24272 Yup. confirmed. Sorry, but obviously I had gotten this interme

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #240 ready for review

Erik Rose wrote: I actually first implemented it exactly that way (even called it IRefreshableLockable), then wondered if the complexity was worth it. I can go either way, but would like to hear some other opinions of best practice in a case like this. For what a non-3.x-FWT opinion is worth

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #126 ready for review

David Glick wrote: PLIP 126 (Link type should automatically redirect when accessed directly) has been implemented. You can get the review buildout from: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip126-link-redirects I'm going to paste the contents of http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip12

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #240 ready for review

David Glick wrote: [..] Hey, just wanted to note that Andrew and I investigated this, discovered it was due to a previously existing bug in the unlockOnFormUnload.js script, and implemented a fix in the branch for PLIP #240. In the process we also discovered a related bug which results in it

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP review deadline has passed - time to review!

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] personally i think it'd be stupid to not consider changes that were ready for a while now. i mean, yes technically you missed the deadline, but to me i makes a subtle difference if you the code isn't quite ready yet or if "only" the notification mail went missing —

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] · #126: Link type should automatically redirect when accessed directly · #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot · #239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper · #240: Improve locking configurability · #247: Automate ZCML Loading for

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: NuPlone and Plone 3.2

Martin Aspeli wrote: [..] - Add Products.NuPlone as a dependency of the Plone egg. This would mean 'Plone' always comes with NuPlone, but there's no reason overt for the dependency. +1 as I consider this the closed to what we used to do so far. Raphael - Add it to the [versions] block,

Re: [Framework-Team] repoze.zope2

Chris McDonough wrote: Hi folks, Hi Chris, thanks a lot for this detailed and helpful summary. At least I do appreciate you sending this here ;-) And yes, I noticed Hanno moved Plone trunk over to this so I consider this very relevant and timely. There is only one further question I woul

Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: this is a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own but more of a clearing house

Re: [Framework-Team] Close Nominations Soon?

Tom Lazar wrote: On 20.11.2008, at 09:47, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: It looks to me like we're getting a pretty good list of nominations. yes, very good! :) Shall we close nominations in a week? I can send deadline announcements to the lists an

Re: [Framework-Team] 3.3 timeline

Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Raphael Ritz wrote: So I'd like to reinforce Wicherts call for early submissions. +1. any ideas about how to get developers to actually try to commit their stuff early? xmas presents or something? :) Beer ;-) Raphael

Re: [Framework-Team] 3.3 timeline

Andreas Zeidler wrote: danny, raphael, and also steve and jon, would that work for you? that's to say, realistically, like in being able to do all necessary reviews etc on time? :) I hope so. At least I'll try to plan for it to the extend possible. What I can say today already, however, tha

Re: [Framework-Team] 3.3 timeline

Tom Lazar wrote: On 03.11.2008, at 10:27, Wichert Akkerman wrote: I've been told the framework team wants to be involved with setting timeframes for releases. I want to propose to take this one step further during the PLIP handling phase: I would like the framework team to propose a timeline fo

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

27;ll also send me a quick list of your new votes, it will help me update the tallies. Thanks, Steve On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Andreas Zeidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: Andreas Zeidl

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default

Wichert Akkerman wrote: I want to propose PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default Motivation -- I suspect that by now most of us have realized that the current inline editing behaviour in Plone 3 is not very practical. It has two main problems: * it is very easily triggered by defau

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 228: Restore 'Add Item..' menu on all pages

Wichert Akkerman wrote: I guess I'm the first one. I want to propose PLIP 228 for Plone 3.3. I feel that removing the removal of the 'Add Item' dropdown in many places in Plone 3 is a regression in behaviour, and makes adding content a lot more cumbersome. The PLIP has so far only received posit

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 237 for Plone 3.3 - Minor i18n upgrades

Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi. I'd like to propose to accept PLIP 237 - Minor i18n upgrades for Plone 3.3. The full text is at http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/237. Short version: Ship PloneLanguageTool 2.1 instead of 2.0 and PlacelessTranslationService 1.5 instead of 1.4 with Plone 3.3.

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file

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/products/plone/roadmap/246 It's a pretty trivial PLIP that adds a new view that is capable of rendering events as an iCalenda

Re: [Framework-Team] Kicking off Plone 4: Release Manager candidate

Alexander Limi wrote: Hi team, There's been a lot of activity and excitement about Plone 4 after the Plone Conference, and I'd like for us to start moving on the development for it. Hanno Schlichting has said that he'd like to be the release manager for Plone 4, and I'd like to formally pro

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP Tallies

Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Steve McMahon wrote: Here are my 3.3 PLIP tallies as of 5:45 2008-10-28 (UTC). These include some unambiguous votes pulled from e-mail messages to the FWT list. Can this be turned into a result? i'd say

[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot

Andreas Zeidler wrote: hi team, afaict PLIP 234[1] was never proposed to the framework team list. technically we require this in order to consider a PLIP, or at least we repeatedly asked PLIP authors to announce their PLIPs here so we're aware of them. seeing that this particular PLIP has a

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file

David Glick wrote: [..] An unofficial +0.5 from me, which will increment to +1 if the following question is addressed: Why is a calendar support mixin used, instead of adapting to ICalendarSupport? My guess would be that this is history. Left over from the old days ;-) Of course you are r

Re: [Framework-Team] Notes from Framework Team Meeting in DC

Tom Lazar wrote: thanks stve for the concise write up. this kind of stuff (i.e. putting consensus into written form) is very important imho. personally, i think your write up (and the decisions we reached during the meeting) strike a very good balance between being too formal and thus restrict

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 244: Portlet management improvements

Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi all, Ricardo Alves has been working (with me providing some guidance) on some incremental improvements to plone.app.portlets. We'd like to propose this for Plone 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/244 +1 on the topic as such. But as Wichert and Alex hav

Re: [Framework-Team] What is Plone 3.3?

Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi, Hi Martin, I hear you loud and clearly ;-) Actually I even share all of you concerns. And I was just about to propose the add-on approach while reading your message. I would agree that if we are providing such changes in the 3.x series site admins should be able to

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 323: Resource Registries Improvements

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Raphael Ritz wrote: I think we have this on the radar already (seeing comments from most team members on the plip page) The framework team desparately needs someone who coordinates things and keeps lists of PLIPs that are being reviewed. I hope that

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 231: Optionally copy roles from parent when blocking inheritance

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Another one from Danny.. http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/231 Optionally copy roles from parent when blocking inheritance As I see this plip it is addressing a feature regression introduced by simplifying the sharing page. Not even sure that needs to be pliped

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 323: Resource Registries Improvements

Wichert Akkerman wrote: A PLIP from Michael Dunlap and Florian Schulze which is marked as being propsed in its workflow state but apparently not mailed to this list (I sense we need a content rule for this stuff..) after the upgrade to Plone 3 ;-) (and once the trigger on workflow state chan

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 236: Move Display menu to edit and allow for custom properties

Wichert Akkerman wrote: I think Danny wanted to propose this for 3.3 but forgot to mail this list? The workflow status shows that he proposed it. Motivation == The display menu is a setting that controls how an object presents itself to the user. Right now it suggests it is a switch th

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 242: Move manage-portlets link to site actions

Wichert Akkerman wrote: I'm too late for my own deadline, so I have no expectation that the framework can review this on time time. If you guys have a bit of spare time I would appreciate it though :) Hi Wichert, don't worry too much. At least I planned to start reviewing only after the confe

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #240: Improve locking configurability

David Glick wrote: I'd like to propose PLIP #240 for inclusion in Plone 3.3: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/240 This PLIP is intended to provide several avenues toward addressing the problem of content accidentally getting left in a locked state. +1 for this, although: "David Glic

Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting at Conference

Steve McMahon wrote: Am I right that Raphael isn't going to be at the conference? No, unfortunately not (for various reasons though I'd love to come ...). Raphael PS: don't worry too much about the jet lag Steve. The first evening(s) are easy. It's the third or forth that are getting tough in

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: Framework Team Page Needs Updating

) we need a new team. For this team I won't be available myself but I'm confident that we'll manage to collect a tough crowd. ;-) Raphael PS: the previous teams were: For Plone 3.0: Wichert Akkerman Martin Aspeli Rocky Burt Raphael Ritz Hanno Schlichting Vincenzo Di Somma Helge Tesd

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Framework Team Page Needs Updating

Alexander Limi wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:35:35 -0700, Martijn Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In your specific case, that'd be for Plone 3.3. Current Plone trunk will be version 4.0. I'd keep it on the list and not canvas us directly though. His point still stands — the team list is

[Framework-Team] Re: Resource Registries improvements PLIP

Michael Dunlap wrote: Hello framework-team! I have a PLIP ( http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/232) that details two potential changes to Resource Registries that would allow for 1) Conditional Comments for CSS Resources, and 2) support for external resources (http://example.com/myreso

Re: [Framework-Team] Framework Team Meeting in DC

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: steve, that's an excellent idea! can we do a quick 'show of hands' here on the list, which framework team meamber will be (if at all) when in DC? like so, perhaps? | from | til - tomster | 6th | 12th

Re: [Framework-Team] availability over the next 5 months

Wichert Akkerman schrieb: Can the members of the framework team mail me some information on their availability for the next couple of months? If there are periods of a week or longer that you know you will not be able to dedicate enough time to framework team business I'ld like to know so I can

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: 3.2 Release Manager

Martijn Pieters wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As far as I know I'm still release manager for 3.x. I've been waiting for the foundation board (in the person of that same limi) to answer some questions I asked about the release manager stipend.

[Framework-Team] Re: tomorrow's PLIP review deadline

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] even though i just spent another two or so hours reading up and sorting out tickets, this is still valid. i guess the first task is pretty much done, or at least the status and assignments[1] of all tickets should reflect the current status. the counting and repor

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Danny Bloemendaal wrote: [..] I'd say to just clear the message when it is no longer needed and indeed show the message if pressing the save button resulst in an error. That means that no message is shown during inline validation. If the message

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] PLIP #216: Template overrides http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/216 https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7750 -4 - never submitted (Raphael notes: not sure we are on trac here as all this is about is to include the z3c.jbot package from http://svn.zope.de/zope.o

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

error in) the status message. That would address the specific concern I have about inconsistent feedback and make things jump around a bit less. Still not sure what's the right thing to do here though Raphael just my $0.02, tom On 20.02.2008, at 13:28, Raphael Ritz wrote: Martin Aspel

Re: [Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

Martin Aspeli wrote: [..] PLIP #202: Support inline validation and editing for formlib forms http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/203 https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7737 +4 - but there is still some debate about what's the best way to handle the portal status message. Once this is sorted

[Framework-Team] The final(?) verdict

Hi Folks, at Wichert's request and in order to update us all I've just compiled the following overview. I hope I didn't forget anything. Feel free to comment on this as you see fit. I've scanned the tracker and looked again at some of the PLIP pages but I didn't dig through the mailing list archi

[Framework-Team] Re: comments on plip187: WebDAV

idered for possible improvements after the PLIP is merged. In fact, some of them are already on my TODO. On Feb 18, 2008 5:09 AM, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, here my current take on this PLIP: tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients. F

Re: [Framework-Team] Suggestion for more a better streamlined process?

Helge Tesdal wrote: [..] How about always keeping half or a third of the previous team on the next team. Unless we're doing that already. :) I like that idea. Currently I am the only one who continued from the previous team and our process also changed somewhat. Raphael -- ___

[Framework-Team] comments on plip224-csrf-protection

Hello again, I have nothing to add to Andi's excellent review. I only want to reinforce that we should not only ship with the two new packages but also start using them right away. At least for security and administration related things like: the personalize_form, password_form, ownership_form,

[Framework-Team] comments on plip187: WebDAV

Hi, here my current take on this PLIP: tested on Linux/Ubuntu 7.10 with Nautilus and Cadaver as WebDAV clients. First, my overall impression: I'm somewhat at a loss here as I don't know what to expect and therefore I don't know what to recommend. :-( While all changes introduced are worthwhile

Re: [Framework-Team] my review status

Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: sorry for the delay, i went out with hannosch and lurker yesterday evening, instead of finishing my last review ;-) way to go. i finished 201 but still couldn't get 209 to wor

Re: [Framework-Team] Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

thing (probably the README) would need to be clarified. On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Steve McMahon wrote: On 2/14/08, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... (ii) maybe I screwed it up myself but I couldn't specify a relative path when specifying the target as follows: Than

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Re: PLIP 212 ready for review

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Florian Schulze wrote: I can't reproduce any of these issues. I tried my exisiting buildout and I made a fresh co of the buildout and ran buildout with the option to get the newest version of everything.

Re: [Framework-Team] scope of reviews was: Re: [Plone-developers] Updated PLIP review deadline

Tom Lazar wrote: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: For 3.0, we had one main reviewer for each bundle who'd report back for a quick vote on the list. People with concerns could then dig into the code in more detail or request more specifics. interesting point. maybe that's what'

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

Martin Aspeli wrote: Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi Martin, *shrug* .. I've got half a mind to just not care anymore. What will you do if you reach the 22nd and you have two or three bundles merged? I'm sorry for ranting here. I'm just exhausted after PSPS and travel and far too much work, an

[Framework-Team] Re: Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

Florian Schulze wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:38:56 +0100, Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (i) when describing start/stop/status we might want to add 'fg' (foreground) as a simple means to start in debug mode without changing the configuration AFAIK this doesn

[Framework-Team] note on plip220-browserlayer

Raphael, 2008-02-12: nothing to add to Andi's comments; +1 from me as well On the cosmetic side I'd like to see the following warnings disappear: /home/ritz/.buildout/zope/Zope-2.10.5-final/lib/python/zope/configuration/fields.py:417: UserWarning: You did not specify an i18n translation domai

[Framework-Team] notes on optilude-plipathon

Hi, here my comments on Martin's PLIP bundle: testing on Ubuntu 7.10 with firefox Doing the usual checks (browse the code; run the tests, play with it in the browser, ...) most things seemed to be OK but: PLIP 184: additional portlets: this is just fine as far as I can see PLIP 200: kupu form

[Framework-Team] note on optilude-plip202

This is about kss inline validation of formlib fields. Functionally, it works as advertised but there's a little issue with the feedback to the user as the portal status message can get out of sync. For more see http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/19238 and for the implementation of the suggest

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Review process: suggestions, and an offer

Graham Perrin wrote: [..] High quality improvements to Plone, and actions from (for example) the Summit, are to me far more satisfying than a fixed schedule for upgrading. Glad you see it this way ;-) And to add to the general theme (process): At least in my case it wasn't about lack of p

Re: [Framework-Team] Testing for PLIP 209: Unified Installer Plus Buildout

Steve McMahon wrote: Thanks for the great review and suggestions, Martijn! I'm pleased to report that the PID problem is taken care of. Nouri fixed it for zope2instance in: http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/55898 and for zope2zeoserver in: http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/558

[Framework-Team] WebDav plip

ue) Feel free to provide any feedback you may have on this to the framework team list right away (included in cc). Thanks, Raphael In any case I have cc'd myself under <https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/7732>. On 15 Jan 2008, at 11:24, Raphael Ritz wrote: I might als

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 224: CSRF protection framework

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Raphael Ritz wrote: There is one question I have already now: Who feels responsible for updating the forms that ship with Plone/AT to make use of this? (or am I missing something?) And don't get me wrong: I have no problem shipping it even without usi

[Fwd: Re: [Framework-Team] review deadline coming up]

Sorry Andy, this should have gone to the list. --- Begin Message --- Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: also, raphael already offered to review martin's plips (184, 200, 202, 203, 204) as well as sidnei's webdav work (187). oh, and raphael, could you l

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP 224: CSRF protection framework

Wichert Akkerman wrote: See http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/224 for details. I absolutely hate to do this since it violates our process and we already have a large number of PLIPs waiting for review, but I am proposing this PLIP for Plone 3.1. Anarchist as I am I have no problem pe

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #215: Include new KSS versions

Balazs Ree wrote: Finally... (drum roll): https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip215-new-kss-version Thanks Balazs, this is great news. Irrespective of the delay I'll definitively take a look and comment on it. Raphael ___ Framework-Team

Re: [Framework-Team] review deadline coming up

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] answer the second part we first need to distribute those 16 review. however, as i don't think anyone would be too happy to go ahead and do this for you, you should initially each grab at least three of them yourselves: * raphael, you've offered to look at mart

Re: [Framework-Team] Plone Release Calendar and the Plone Development Process

Christian Scholz wrote: Hi everybody! Hi Christian, thanks for bringing this up. My short answer at the moment is that all these issues are almost certainly going to be addressed at the forthcoming developer summit, Febr 7/8-10. Let's hope we'll manage to come up with a sensible solution.

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #215: Include new KSS versions

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: just a quick 'heads up' from me that i have no problem with the delay. i'd very much like to see new and improved kss in every new version of plone ;-) I sort of agree, but I do want to note that I can not find a reference of PLIP

Re: [Framework-Team] PLIP #215: Include new KSS versions

Tom Lazar wrote: just a quick 'heads up' from me that i have no problem with the delay. i'd very much like to see new and improved kss in every new version of plone ;-) I've also no problem with the delay here. cheers, tom p.s. have fun in austria, wish i could be there... Indeed, me

Re: [Framework-Team] Organizing the review

Andreas Zeidler wrote: [..] actually, i meant using the plone's dev trac itself — no need to set up things and accounts etc, the info's gonna stay around and also the bundle reviews are somewhat related to it after all... ;) That would be great indeed. Just want to mention that last time we

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 195 implementation ready for review

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Raphael Ritz wrote: (i) I didn't find specific (unit) tests for the new feature (e.g., installing ProductOne results in ProductTwo being installed; BrokenProduct being found as non-installable) Should be trivial to add given what's the

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 195 implementation ready for review

Wichert Akkerman wrote: [..] I've implemented this change and updated the review buildout. Wichert. Thanks Wichert! I just added my (final?) comments to the bundle: http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip195-dependencies/REVIEW_NOTES.txt Raphael 2008-01-17: ===

Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Official submission: PLIP 184, 200, 203 and 204

Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: for the record (as a framework team member) i'd like to support martin on this issue. the formlib wysiwyg support is a *new* feature, and if it happens to *not* work for fckeditor, eventhough wysiwg support used to work for kupu *and*

  1   2   >