I'd like to see some more detail on this PLIP. Currently, it seems to
assume the reader is familiar with z3c.jbot, or requires the reviewer
to exaimine the jbot code/docs (which is an burden better left for the
code review phase). Of course my opinion is irrelevant. Also, I'm
very much in
I tot
On 14 dec 2007, at 18:52, Alec Mitchell wrote:
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,
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
acceptable, so +1 on that.
True. I say, let's think of z3c.jbot as inspiration
On Dec 14, 2007 1:50 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Malthe Borch wrote:
If this belongs in Plone, then it's pretty much ready for inclusion.
http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/216
I do quite like this approach. I think it brings back some of the
convention over
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
acceptable, so
