On 1/5/06, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > And CMF 1.6 already has more changes that just GenericSetup, some of
> > which are already causing me other headaches.
>
> which are these? the most significant changes are in the TypesTool, and
> this was done in order
Lennart Regebro wrote:
And CMF 1.6 already has more changes that just GenericSetup, some of
which are already causing me other headaches.
which are these? the most significant changes are in the TypesTool, and
this was done in order to achieve more parity btn the 1.6 and 2.0 site
creation co
On 1/5/06, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe i'm being dense, but i don't see how merging the code into the CMF
> core improves this. if i'm understanding this correctly, you wouldn't
> be increasing the number of supported combinations at all;
No, I'd just get rid of a whole lot of p
Lennart Regebro wrote:
this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was "CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup", i don't see a compelling reason to complicate things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive stays separate, then you can c
On 1/5/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry I didn't follow this discussion closely, so you want to merge
> the last remnants of CMFonFive into CMF 1.6 and 2.0, is that the
> suggestion?
It's already merged into CMF 2.0 (although it's not actuall *working* yet. ;) )
So it's only 1
On 5 Jan 2006, at 09:40, Lennart Regebro wrote:
this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was "CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup", i don't see a compelling reason to complicate
things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive s
> this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
> 1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was "CMF 1.5 +
> GenericSetup", i don't see a compelling reason to complicate things by
> expanding that scope. if CMFonFive stays separate, then you can code it
> to suppo
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/4/06, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
urgh. this isn't ideal for Plone. i'm assuming you've hit some
specific problems w/ getting the current CMFonFive code to support both
2.8 and 2.9? can you provide a little more detail re: the compatibility
issues? in t
On 1/4/06, Rob Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> urgh. this isn't ideal for Plone. i'm assuming you've hit some
> specific problems w/ getting the current CMFonFive code to support both
> 2.8 and 2.9? can you provide a little more detail re: the compatibility
> issues? in the meantime, i'll b
