On Tue, 05 May 2009 13:26:37 -0700, Alec Mitchell
wrote:
If you want to pinpoint a release that broke expectations with regard
to compatibility, Plone 2.1 is a far better example.
Just to make sure history is represented correctly here — Alec is
absolutely right.
Plone 2.5 was a well-ma
On 5. mai. 2009, at 22:26, Alec Mitchell wrote:
I'd like to stand up for "my" release a little, since people seem to
be implying it was some sort of expectations/compatibility disaster.
I don't consider it a disaster. To me it's more about the community
learning from mistakes, identifying ar
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
[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we're starting to look a bit out of date on Zope 2.10 + Zope 3.3 + CMF 2.1.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
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
I'm leaning towards naming the new intermediate release Plone 4 rather
than Plone 3.5, and change what we previously thought of as Plone 4 to
Plone 5 or Plone Future (until it becomes close enough in time to give
it a version number).
Plone 3 has been stable and a safe choice, and jumping t
(sorry if you get this twice)
> 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 we're starting to look a bit out of date on Zope 2.10 + Zope 3.3 + CMF 2.1.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 catch up be done in
increments? 3.4 then 3.5 then 3.6?
My worry he
for the record, i think this is a great idea.
this will also take some weight off of the 4release, since some of its
low-risk components will have had some real-world usage by then.
also, it should make migrations from 3.x to 4.x easier, i could imagine.
i'm also more than fine with eric as
On 5 May 2009, at 12:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a
Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5
that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both
refresh some of our technical underp
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 release up next. We'd skip any
10 matches
Mail list logo
