From danny.bloemendaal at informaat.nl Sun Feb 1 12:33:21 2009 From: danny.bloemendaal at informaat.nl (Danny Bloemendaal) Date: Sun Feb 1 12:33:55 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP 243 review buildout available In-Reply-To: <20090117235027.GA5427@wiggy.net> References: <20090117235027.GA5427@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <7311AF20-03B2-40DD-A911-348B0C9AE88B@informaat.nl> I added my review notes: PLIP 243 framework UI review by Danny Bloemendaal (ender_), 2009-02-01 ====================================================================== I reviewed this bundle and it all looks very familiair to me (ok, the markup and ideas where taken from our plone intranet) ;-). Anyway it all looks good and works as expected (the bugs mentioned below seem to be fixed). I added some css and icons to make it look good (imho). One remark: I'd like to see a time stamp as well in the revision dropdowns when viewing diffs. There can me more than one revision during the day and then the time information helps. Conclusion ---------- +1 to integrate. On 18 jan 2009, at 00:50, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > For reference here are the implementation notes. They are also > present in the > README.txt in the buildout itself. > > > Implementation notes > ==================== > > This buildout contains the base implementation for PLIP 243: replace > the > standard workflow history viewlet with a content history viewlet. > > This buildout contains two changes: > > - plone.app.layout has a new content history viewlet. This viewlet > shows > both versioning and workflow changes, and provides direct options to > show the differences between versions, review an older version or > revert > to an older version. > > - a new history view was added which provides a much simpler way to > show the differences between different revisions. > > > Needed documentation changes > ---------------------------- > > User manuals should be updated to show the content viewlet and > describe the > actions it exposes. > > > Outstanding issues > ------------------ > > - the html_diff code difference view can trigger a > UnicodeDecodeError, so I > disabled it for now. For some unknown reason this only happens in the > history browser view. The exact same diff works fine when shown via > the > version_diff CMF page template. > > - the CSS and icons needed for the content history viewlet are still > missing. My CSS skills are too limited and my graphics skills > non-existant, so someone else will need to tackle this. I can show > screenshots of the viewlet as it is running on a customer site > if desirable. > > - it might be desirable to add a migration step to Plone to remove the > old history action. > > - the permission used for the @@history form may need to be verified > > > -- > Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. > http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things > simple. > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team From raphael.ritz at incf.org Sun Feb 1 16:38:08 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Sun Feb 1 16:38:24 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP Bundle Review Status In-Reply-To: <26a908b50901311139r4168aebdj4cbdca6d5c14584e@mail.gmail.com> References: <26a908b50901311139r4168aebdj4cbdca6d5c14584e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4985CFF0.5040006@incf.org> 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 > Rejected: 234 > Mixed: 126 (documentation & UI issues) > > *Reviews Not Yet Completed:* 232, 247 > > *Details (complete chart at > http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33)* > > *PLIP #126 : Link type > should automatically redirect when accessed directly* > > Review Complete: +2 technical (qualified); -1 UI (qualified) > > *PLIP #197 : Add > FeedParser as external requirement > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #232 : Resource > Registries Improvements > * > No reviews yet. > > *PLIP #234 : > Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot > * > Review Complete: -2 > > *PLIP #237 : Minor i18n > upgrades > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #238 : Disable > inline editing by default > * > Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI > > *PLIP #239 : Adapterise > the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #240 : Improve > locking configurability > * > Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI > > *PLIP #241 : Clean up > auto-sort: auto-order code > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #243 : Replace > workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #246 : View for > rendering events as an iCalendar file > * > Review Complete: +2 > > *PLIP #247 : Automate > ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins > * > Review Incomplete: +1 > From lists at tomster.org Mon Feb 2 19:15:43 2009 From: lists at tomster.org (Tom Lazar) Date: Mon Feb 2 19:15:55 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP 243 review buildout available In-Reply-To: <7311AF20-03B2-40DD-A911-348B0C9AE88B@informaat.nl> References: <20090117235027.GA5427@wiggy.net> <7311AF20-03B2-40DD-A911-348B0C9AE88B@informaat.nl> Message-ID: i have updated my review after the recent changes: --snip-- Second review after fixes (2009-02-02) -------------------------------------- After fixes by Wichert and Danny the picture looks much prettier :-) * All but two tests passed. One is explicitely related to another ticket and irrelevant to this PLIP. * The other simply failed due to the changes made by this PLIP, so I took the liberty of `fixing it on the spot`_ * Manual tests worked fine without anything unexpected. * I do think the icons look too different from the rest of Plone's default look but that's just my personal taste, no showstopper. conclusion (updated) -------------------- After the recent changes I am now +1 on merging. --snap-- On 01.02.2009, at 13:33, Danny Bloemendaal wrote: > I added my review notes: > > PLIP 243 framework UI review by Danny Bloemendaal (ender_), 2009-02-01 > ====================================================================== > > I reviewed this bundle and it all looks very familiair to me (ok, > the markup and ideas where taken from our plone intranet) ;-). Anyway > it all looks good and works as expected (the bugs mentioned below seem > to be fixed). I added some css and icons > to make it look good (imho). > > One remark: I'd like to see a time stamp as well in the revision > dropdowns when viewing diffs. There can me more than one revision > during > the day and then the time information helps. > > Conclusion > ---------- > +1 to integrate. > > On 18 jan 2009, at 00:50, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> For reference here are the implementation notes. They are also >> present in the >> README.txt in the buildout itself. >> >> >> Implementation notes >> ==================== >> >> This buildout contains the base implementation for PLIP 243: >> replace the >> standard workflow history viewlet with a content history viewlet. >> >> This buildout contains two changes: >> >> - plone.app.layout has a new content history viewlet. This viewlet >> shows >> both versioning and workflow changes, and provides direct options to >> show the differences between versions, review an older version or >> revert >> to an older version. >> >> - a new history view was added which provides a much simpler way to >> show the differences between different revisions. >> >> >> Needed documentation changes >> ---------------------------- >> >> User manuals should be updated to show the content viewlet and >> describe the >> actions it exposes. >> >> >> Outstanding issues >> ------------------ >> >> - the html_diff code difference view can trigger a >> UnicodeDecodeError, so I >> disabled it for now. For some unknown reason this only happens in the >> history browser view. The exact same diff works fine when shown via >> the >> version_diff CMF page template. >> >> - the CSS and icons needed for the content history viewlet are still >> missing. My CSS skills are too limited and my graphics skills >> non-existant, so someone else will need to tackle this. I can show >> screenshots of the viewlet as it is running on a customer site >> if desirable. >> >> - it might be desirable to add a migration step to Plone to remove >> the >> old history action. >> >> - the permission used for the @@history form may need to be verified >> >> >> -- >> Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. >> http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things >> simple. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Framework-Team mailing list >> Framework-Team@lists.plone.org >> http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > From wichert at wiggy.net Wed Feb 4 09:11:26 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Wed Feb 4 09:11:39 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Final review report Message-ID: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> 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 that have been reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? Regards, Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From laurent.mignon at softwareag.com Wed Feb 4 15:50:21 2009 From: laurent.mignon at softwareag.com (Laurent Mignon) Date: Wed Feb 4 15:55:11 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] plone.z3cform and absoluteURL Message-ID: Hi, How can I do to have getMultiAdapter((myWrappedForm, request), IAbsoluteURL) working when myWrappedForm is a z3c.form wrapped py plone.z3cform.layout.FormWrapper? I've the feeling that something is missing in plone.z3cform to cover this need. (maybe am I wrong...) When a z3c.form is wrapped by the FormWrapper class, nothing is done to mark the z3c.form as wrapped and to give it who is the original form (the called BrowserView). Marking the form_instance with a IWrappedForm interface and setting on it a ??_original_form?? attribute will give us the opportunity to register a dedicated adapter on IWrappedForm for IAbsoluteURL. The adapter should only return a call getMultiAdapter((myWrappedForm.??_oiginal_form???, request), IAbsoluteURL) What do you think, Thanks, sagblmi From wichert at wiggy.net Wed Feb 4 16:02:12 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Wed Feb 4 16:02:20 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] plone.z3cform and absoluteURL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090204160212.GB2784@wiggy.net> Previously Laurent Mignon wrote: > How can I do to have getMultiAdapter((myWrappedForm, request), > IAbsoluteURL) working when myWrappedForm is a z3c.form wrapped py > plone.z3cform.layout.FormWrapper? This sounds like a question for another list (product-developers or possible plone-develop). Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From laurent.mignon at softwareag.com Wed Feb 4 16:15:07 2009 From: laurent.mignon at softwareag.com (Laurent Mignon) Date: Wed Feb 4 16:15:34 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: plone.z3cform and absoluteURL In-Reply-To: <20090204160212.GB2784@wiggy.net> References: <20090204160212.GB2784@wiggy.net> Message-ID: Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Laurent Mignon wrote: >> How can I do to have getMultiAdapter((myWrappedForm, request), >> IAbsoluteURL) working when myWrappedForm is a z3c.form wrapped py >> plone.z3cform.layout.FormWrapper? > > This sounds like a question for another list (product-developers or > possible plone-develop). > > Wichert. > Sorry, I'll post on plone-develop list. Thanks From steve at dcn.org Wed Feb 4 16:48:47 2009 From: steve at dcn.org (Steve McMahon) Date: Wed Feb 4 16:48:54 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> Hi Wichert, Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail. This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review status as of Wednesday: Reviews Complete Accepted: 126, 197, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 246 Rejected: 234 Reviews Not Yet Completed: 232 (review bundle never submitted) 247 (+1 from MJ) Details (complete chart at http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33) PLIP #126: Link type should automatically redirect when accessed directly Review Complete: Based on reading the list discussion: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #197: Add FeedParser as external requirement Review Complete: +2 PLIP #232: Resource Registries Improvements No reviews yet. PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Review Complete: -2 PLIP #237: Minor i18n upgrades Review Complete: +2 PLIP #238: Disable inline editing by default Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper Review Complete: +2 PLIP #240: Improve locking configurability Review Complete: +2 technical; +1 UI PLIP #241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code Review Complete: +2 PLIP #243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet Review Complete: +2 PLIP #246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file Review: +2 PLIP #247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins Review Incomplete: +1 from MJ -- Steve McMahon Reid-McMahon, LLC steve@reidmcmahon.com steve@dcn.org On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:11 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 that have been > reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? > > Regards, > Wichert. > > -- > Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. > http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. > -- Steve McMahon Reid-McMahon, LLC steve@reidmcmahon.com steve@dcn.org From lists at tomster.org Wed Feb 4 19:14:16 2009 From: lists at tomster.org (Tom Lazar) Date: Wed Feb 4 19:14:28 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8F3BE94E-20C6-45D0-80E3-FC994F4AAD6B@tomster.org> thanks steve, for the summary report! there's only one thing i'd like to point out (or rather make explicit), namely, that: On 04.02.2009, at 17:48, Steve McMahon wrote: > [...] > PLIP #234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot > > Review Complete: -2 does not mean, that it is flat out rejected. both reviewers (i.e. andi and myself) have stated, that the current deficits are fixable within the second review phase. AFAIK calvin has already started to work on it, based on our reviews. like i said, i just wanted to state that more clearly to prevent any confusion, cheers, tom From wichert at wiggy.net Wed Feb 4 19:16:44 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Wed Feb 4 19:16:55 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4989E99C.1080709@wiggy.net> On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: > Hi Wichert, > > Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add detail. > Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should state why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to do to get them accepted in the next round. Wichert. From az at zitc.de Wed Feb 4 20:28:09 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Wed Feb 4 20:28:39 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> Message-ID: 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 that have been > reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. i don't think we need an "official" update for that ? it's only the first round of reviews after all. of course that'll be different for the final deadline, i.e. the on on february 14th. for now PLIP authors have been informed about the status of their respective implementations and should know if there's still work to do. essentially the only PLIP that still needs some atm is 234, and calvin told me before he was going to work through the issues. that said, there are still missing bundle reviews, of course. in particular both reviews for 232 as well as mine for 247. i'd like to apologize for not having submitted it yet. i simply didn't manage to do all six until last friday, after which two unforeseen circumstances essentially took up all of my spare time. i should have asked for help, but tom had already offered it at some point, so i didn't. however, as it turns out he was also overworked and otherwise pressed with time (but can't be blamed for trying to help anyway). anyway, i'll try to turn it in asap, can't really promise anything though. i hope i'll be able to wrap it up tonight, but might be kept from it once more. sorry to be so vague, but some things need to have priority. in the unlikely case anyone from the new team wants to go for a practice run, it'd be much appreciated! :) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090204/7877c741/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Wed Feb 4 20:44:32 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Wed Feb 4 20:45:01 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <4989E99C.1080709@wiggy.net> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> <4989E99C.1080709@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <667C0ABB-1DC0-41C8-834F-350385CBF8FA@zitc.de> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:16 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 2/4/09 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: >> Does this give you what you need? If not, I'll be happy to add >> detail. > > Please add some detail. In particular for rejected PLIPs it should > state why they were rejected and what the PLIP author has to do to > get them accepted in the next round. this only applies to 234, and its PLIP page contains tom's review notes as well as a link to mine. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090204/b3462d99/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Wed Feb 4 20:46:02 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Wed Feb 4 20:46:29 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <26a908b50902040848rfaede0ds8605f349fd2cd64b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35408913-21B9-4722-B55E-839DFAEFD3C0@zitc.de> On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Steve McMahon wrote: > This is a summary of the Framework Team's 3.3 PLIP bundle review > status as of Wednesday: first of all, thank you steve! > Reviews Not Yet Completed: > 232 (review bundle never submitted) this is not correct, imo. the bundle was submitted late (it was ready, but florian never sent the mail to the list), but the team decided to review it nevertheless. so these reviews are also pending. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090204/d1b82c99/PGP.pgp From raphael.ritz at incf.org Thu Feb 5 08:45:03 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Thu Feb 5 08:45:18 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> 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 that have been >> reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? >> > > steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. Which I had updated on Sunday http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2009-February/002675.html to include my late coming reviews as well. Regarding a date when the rest will be ready is pure guess work. Of course ASAP - whenever that my be. (I hope to get my last one in tonight or tomorrow). I don't know how other reviewers see this but at least I didn't consider my positive responses in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are entering a second round now: authors picking up on reviewer comments. Example: http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt What I mean here is that even if merged as is right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously think that at least the first two points I mention in my review notes would improve things even further. But maybe others have different views on that? That's what I consider this second round now to be about. Raphael From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 16:36:06 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 16:36:32 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2009, at 2:37 AM, Ethan Jucovy wrote: > Hello, hi ethan, > I've implemented PLIP #247, Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plugins (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/247 > ) and committed a review buildout here: > https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip247-automate-plugin-zcml > for your review. i've added my review notes in http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/ 24863 (and r24864). for now i'm +0, but this can be fixed quite easily... :) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/597ba209/PGP.pgp From ethan.jucovy at gmail.com Thu Feb 5 17:35:34 2009 From: ethan.jucovy at gmail.com (Ethan Jucovy) Date: Thu Feb 5 17:35:40 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey Andi, Thanks for the review. Again I'll have to be a bit brief, this time because I'm about to get on a plane. :) But I figured I may as well give some quick replies to keep the conversation going. Let me know if I should be putting these comments in SVN or on http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/247instead of//as well as replying on-list, BTW. At http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24863, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > * one issue i was wondering about is how to "target" multiple base packages > for the plugin case. adding an additional "target = ..." line yields > a "Duplicate entry point" error in `easy_install`. reading the code > "target = plone, grok" isn't supported either. seeing that grok is > already actively using the package i would imagine that supporting > multiple "base packages" (or projects) does make sense, though. adding > such support would be a definite plus, imho, and should also be rather > simple to do. This is actually already a hidden feature. ;) The entry point name ("target") is purely convention; it's not used at all in the code. So {{{ entry_points=""" [z3c.autoinclude.plugin] morx = plone bar = mygrok.app """ }}} ought to do what you describe. The only reason we used the "target" convention at all is to make it read well and to keep the documentation simpler. > * as for `david's and my reservations`__ wrt testing i'd like to add > that this package only automates the otherwise manually added > loading of zcml for additional packages in your buildout. iow, it > doesn't make a difference compared to the situation we have right > now: if you add a package to your buildout it's zcml will be loaded > by the ZCML layer anyway, even if you only run specific tests for > some other, unrelated package. so shipping with `z3c.autoinclude` > doesn't change or make this any worse. > > however, imho always loading essentially all zcml contained in your > buildout is a huge problem and should be fixed at some point. otoh > not doing so might prevent you from finding possible conflicts or > otherwise bad interactions between your packages more quickly. so i > suppose ideally it should be an option to the testrunner, but disabled > by default. > > now if we start depending on `z3c.autoinclude` i think this will get > harder to fix in the future. right now the additional packages are > pulled in by your buildout, but with this change plone itself will handle > this. so the zcml loading `z3c.autoinclude` should at least be made > conditional. that way you could simply disable `z3c.autoinclude` (i'm > thinking of something like ``eggs -= z3c.autoinclude` here) and prevent > everything being loaded. this change could then even turn out to be > helpful wrt fixing the above mentioned issue, since `z3c.autoinclude` > alone could be changed to not trigger zcml loading during test runs. Big +1 on considering the testing complications. (Though in my limited experience I've actually found that any of my tests that break as a result of z3c.autoinclude's "unpredictable" ZCML inclusion are badly isolated tests anyway.) My gut feeling is that I'd rather keep logic like what to do in test runs, or for that matter what a test run is, out of z3c.autoinclude though. Perhaps z3c.autoinclude could check if `os.environ.has_key('Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DISABLED')` and the test runner and/or a buildout option could set that environment variable? Thanks again, Ethan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/c6281b4f/attachment.htm From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 20:29:40 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 20:30:11 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7908A6F2-71ED-4811-9040-385A56BE02DA@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Ethan Jucovy wrote: > Hey Andi, hi ethan, > Thanks for the review. thanks for the quick reply! :) > Again I'll have to be a bit brief, this time because I'm about to > get on a plane. :) But I figured I may as well give some quick > replies to keep the conversation going. much appreciated. oh, and sorry for the late review, btw. i'm not sure you saw my message yesterday, but unfortunately a few things kept me from doing it earlier (lack of sleep amongst them :)). > Let me know if I should be putting these comments in SVN or on http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/247 > instead of//as well as replying on-list, BTW. i guess the list is fine, as interested parties can still read the entire discussion in the archives, for example by following the link i put on the PLIP page. you may of course also answer there or link to your answer here. i don't think we have any strict policy in place about this. :) > At http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24863, Andreas Zeidler > wrote: > > * one issue i was wondering about is how to "target" multiple > base packages > > for the plugin case. adding an additional "target = ..." line > yields > > a "Duplicate entry point" error in `easy_install`. reading the > code > > "target = plone, grok" isn't supported either. seeing that > grok is > > already actively using the package i would imagine that > supporting > > multiple "base packages" (or projects) does make sense, > though. adding > > such support would be a definite plus, imho, and should also be > rather > > simple to do. > > This is actually already a hidden feature. ;) The entry point name > ("target") is purely convention; it's not used at all in the code. i noticed that. in fact, i was trying to figure out how the assigned value ("plone") ended up in `module_name`. i ended up looked at the entry point's (the one you get from `pkg_resources.iter_entry_points`) `__dict__`, assuming that some magic in `pkg_resources` would translate the "target" to be meant as the module's name. but apparently all given value end up as `module_name` in the dict. i suppose i should have had a closer look at entry point definitions first. > So > {{{ > entry_points=""" > [z3c.autoinclude.plugin] > morx = plone > bar = mygrok.app > """ > }}} yes, that works. in any case this should be documented, though. > Big +1 on considering the testing complications. (Though in my > limited experience I've actually found that any of my tests that > break as a result of z3c.autoinclude's "unpredictable" ZCML > inclusion are badly isolated tests anyway.) well, i was thinking of a debug session where some tests where failing after LinguaPlone had been added to the buildout. i'm not entirely sure anymore if i had already added it to the buildout (zcml-wise) or if the module was loaded by the testrunner thereby activating some monkey-patches. but you're right, that might also qualify as bad test isolation, but every little bit that helps making this easier is much appreciated (and i know not just by me :)). > My gut feeling is that I'd rather keep logic like what to do in test > runs, or for that matter what a test run is, out of z3c.autoinclude > though. +1, of course. that wouldn't make sense, imho. there are too many different testrunners for one, and there will probably be others in the future. "knowing" them all is certainly not something `z3c.autoinclude` should attempt. > Perhaps z3c.autoinclude could check if > `os.environ.has_key('Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DISABLED')` and the test runner > and/or a buildout option could set that environment variable? yep, also +1. after all, that's exactly what environment variable are for, aren't they? :) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/53cb86f6/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 20:37:36 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 20:38:03 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: <7908A6F2-71ED-4811-9040-385A56BE02DA@zitc.de> References: <7908A6F2-71ED-4811-9040-385A56BE02DA@zitc.de> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > [...snip...] > > yes, that works. in any case this should be documented, though. > > [...snip again...] > >> Perhaps z3c.autoinclude could check if >> `os.environ.has_key('Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DISABLED')` and the test >> runner and/or a buildout option could set that environment variable? > > yep, also +1. after all, that's exactly what environment variable > are for, aren't they? :) i forgot to mention that it'd be great if you could try to work these out until some time next week. technically the revision deadline is this saturday, of course, but since my review was several days late, i think it's only fair to still grant you a full week to address these issues. i hope the delay doesn't cause too many inconveniences and you'll find the time it takes... > cheers, > > > andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/bce837ff/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 20:48:28 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 20:49:18 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> Message-ID: <418E1F8A-0901-42E9-A11C-A4FA769F1916@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: > I don't know how other reviewers see this but > at least I didn't consider my positive responses > in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are > entering a second round now: authors picking up > on reviewer comments. +1 > Example: > http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt > > What I mean here is that even if merged as is > right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously > think that at least the first two points I mention > in my review notes would improve things even > further. But maybe others have different views > on that? no, not at all. i agree that atm +1 can still mean there are things that might be improved. i suppose we could try to update the status in that regard. otoh, all reviewers should have informed the PLIP authors via cc (or at least i hope so!?) so they know about these (minor) issues. as for 246, i'm especially +1 and will comment on your review notes in the next mail... :) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/5df76b0f/PGP.pgp From wichert at wiggy.net Thu Feb 5 21:06:05 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Thu Feb 5 21:05:55 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> Message-ID: <498B54BD.3080306@wiggy.net> On 2/5/09 9:45 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: > 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 that >>> have been >>> reviewed properly, and a date when the rest will be ready as well? >> >> steve has compiled and posted an overview last saturday. > > Which I had updated on Sunday > > http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2009-February/002675.html > > > to include my late coming reviews as well. > > Regarding a date when the rest will be ready > is pure guess work. Of course ASAP - whenever > that my be. (I hope to get my last one in > tonight or tomorrow). > > I don't know how other reviewers see this but > at least I didn't consider my positive responses > in all cases to mean "ready for merge" as we are > entering a second round now: authors picking up > on reviewer comments. Interesting, that is not how I interpret a +1 at all. To me there are two possible outcomes right now: declare a PLIP ready for merging, or declare it unready for merging for a number of reasons. There are PLIPs that are fit for merging right now. How would you score those if your +1 has another meaning? > Example: > > http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt > > What I mean here is that even if merged as is > right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously > think that at least the first two points I mention > in my review notes would improve things even > further. But maybe others have different views > on that? With that reasoning in my opion that is a negative for merging right now with those two points as criteria that need to be met before merging later. So... now that the meaning of +1 is suddenly no longer sure, can I please get a list of PLIPs that are ready for merging right now? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 21:19:14 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 21:19:41 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <418E1F8A-0901-42E9-A11C-A4FA769F1916@zitc.de> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> <418E1F8A-0901-42E9-A11C-A4FA769F1916@zitc.de> Message-ID: <3BC65194-0E89-4F7E-9A46-81B9C10F22F4@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > [...] otoh, all reviewers should have informed the PLIP authors via > cc (or at least i hope so!?) so they know about these (minor) issues. > > as for 246, i'm especially +1 and will comment on your review notes > in the next mail... :) heh, gotcha! without a reply with your review notes at hand (neither from tom or you, btw :)), i'm gonna paste them in from the `REVIEW- NOTES.txt` for commenting: > Framework team Plone 3.3 review #1 (Tom) > ---------------------------------------- > > [...] > > This however, resulted in a 404. It turned out, that the view was only > registered for IATFolder and IPloneSiteRoot, but not for `Large > Plone Folder` > a.ka. IATBTreeFolder. I took the liberty of `fixing this > myself`__ ;-) and it > worked as expected. yep, that was indeed a rather silly oversight on my behalf. thanks for fixing it. > [...] Most of the information entered into the event appeared > in iCal however, multi-day events should be marked as 'all-day' - > but that's > actually a limitation of ATCT's .ics implementation and not within > the scope of > this PLIP. i'd consider this a bug in ATCT and would suggest you create a ticket for it! ;) you may assign it to me, though. > From my perspective, there are only two issues remaining: > > * the cache key doesn't need to include the negotiated browser > language since > the output, i.e. the ical data, isn't i18n-aware. (i.e. just > merge the existing > solution to this from `here`__ ) yep, as you've noticed (well, after pointing it out ;)) this has already been fixed in the supplemental `collective.icalfeed` package (which was created to support older version of plone, btw, including 2.5). it also contains support for collections (see below), but i didn't want to start merging things back to the PLIP in the middle of the first review phase. well, i also was too busy anyway... > * the calendar view should include the Title and description of the > containing > folder. Currently this is not the case and iCal defaults to > `Untitled` for > the title and to an empty description. good one. i'll make sure to add that during the revision phase next week. > Framework team Plone 3.3 review #2 (Raphael) > -------------------------------------------- > > I reviewed this under Ubuntu using Sunbird as calendar app. great! this is helpful as i've only tested it with iCal myself. > In total I can confirm Tom's observations (but with 'Large Plone > Folder' > support added in the mean time). Here some further remarks: > > * I propose to add support for collections (Topics) as well like i said, that's already done in `collective.icalfeed` and will be merged back to the PLIP. > * I propose to integrate this closer into the default UI. As of now, > you need > to manually enter the URL to get the feed. This could be done via a > document action with appropriate condition (potentailly trickey > and/or > expensive). At least one could add the link to the events portlet. as said elsewhere before (or i least i think i have), i'll happily add such a link or action. however, i'd really appreciate a short discussion about this as i've got too little UI expertise myself. perhaps danny and/or alex have a suggestion here? or anybody else too, of course! > * Since we offer vCal views in addition to iCal views for individual > events > it should be straight-forward to offer that as a feed as well. > Would that make sense? i think it would. frankly i simply neglected it in the initial prototype (why do the boring stuff? :)) and was too tired the night i tried to wrap up the PLIP in time for the submission deadline. reviewing it i would have suggested the same myself, though. what would be a good way to test this, btw? > * I wonder what it would take to enable writing back. Sunbird happily > offered me to change the imported events. It even asked me for my > password > on the Plone site I tested with. While I didn't get any error > message > nothing changed on the site either. > I know this is not the scope of this plip. Just want to ask those > who potentially know. i'm not sure how much work it would be, but afaik there are already other packages implementing this. i found at least one while checking for potentially already existing solutions for the ical feed, but not that i'm actually trying to find it again, i can't of course... :) anyway, i think this would be a great feature, but is out of scope for this PLIP. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/9cebf5da/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 21:38:10 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 21:38:36 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <498B54BD.3080306@wiggy.net> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> <498B54BD.3080306@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <7F22A931-308F-44B8-B340-AF02A8DA9B4F@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Interesting, that is not how I interpret a +1 at all. To me there > are two possible outcomes right now: declare a PLIP ready for > merging, or declare it unready for merging for a number of reasons. perhaps to clarify a bit: my +1 actually meant "ready for merging", literally. my last mail was to second that even though some PLIPs may have received +1s there might still be room for improvement (during the revision phase). but that's not a requirement. >> Example: >> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip246-ical-feed/REVIEW-NOTES.txt >> >> What I mean here is that even if merged as is >> right now I would consider it OK yet I seriously >> think that at least the first two points I mention >> in my review notes would improve things even >> further. But maybe others have different views >> on that? > > With that reasoning in my opion that is a negative for merging right > now with those two points as criteria that need to be met before > merging later. i don't read it like that. raphael clearly said "if merged as is" he "would consider it OK". of course things can be improved, but i'd interpret that as "no showstoppers found". however, if that's not true, the vote should be different indeed. > So... now that the meaning of +1 is suddenly no longer sure, can I > please get a list of PLIPs that are ready for merging right now? i don't think that's necessary. we all should know what a +1 means, and that's "ready for merging as is". so unless some team members speaks up or changes their vote accordingly, you may consider all PLIPs that received +2 to be mergeable. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/7bb58160/PGP.pgp From hannosch at hannosch.eu Thu Feb 5 21:41:07 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Thu Feb 5 21:41:29 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <3BC65194-0E89-4F7E-9A46-81B9C10F22F4@zitc.de> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> <418E1F8A-0901-42E9-A11C-A4FA769F1916@zitc.de> <3BC65194-0E89-4F7E-9A46-81B9C10F22F4@zitc.de> Message-ID: <498B5CF3.3060605@hannosch.eu> Andreas Zeidler wrote: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> This however, resulted in a 404. It turned out, that the view was only >> registered for IATFolder and IPloneSiteRoot, but not for `Large Plone >> Folder` >> a.ka. IATBTreeFolder. I took the liberty of `fixing this myself`__ ;-) >> and it >> worked as expected. > > yep, that was indeed a rather silly oversight on my behalf. thanks for > fixing it. I haven't looked at the code, but why restrict this to those container interfaces alone? Isn't some IContainer or OFS-level interface all that is required? Once the Plone site root is supported, the code likely doesn't rely on any of the AT-semantics. Hanno From hannosch at hannosch.eu Thu Feb 5 21:44:44 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Thu Feb 5 21:45:10 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 237 ready for review In-Reply-To: <4264EC3A-93C4-411C-973D-FF82DEE74821@zitc.de> References: <4264EC3A-93C4-411C-973D-FF82DEE74821@zitc.de> Message-ID: <498B5DCC.6030407@hannosch.eu> Andreas Zeidler wrote: > On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: >> I'm somewhat late with creating the review buildout for PLIP 237 (Minor >> i18n upgrades) at: >> https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip237-minor-i18n-upgrades/ >> >> The review notes and detailed explanation is found in the review >> buildout's README.txt. > > i've added notes in http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24772 > > in short: i'm +1 for merging, but PLT has an error which needs to be > fixed before the next release. it's not related to the changes, though. Can you add a ticket for the bug you encountered? From the review notes alone, I wasn't able to understand what the problem really is. Thanks! Hanno From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 22:25:54 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 22:26:20 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Final review report In-Reply-To: <498B5CF3.3060605@hannosch.eu> References: <20090204091126.GA21377@wiggy.net> <498AA70F.9010706@incf.org> <418E1F8A-0901-42E9-A11C-A4FA769F1916@zitc.de> <3BC65194-0E89-4F7E-9A46-81B9C10F22F4@zitc.de> <498B5CF3.3060605@hannosch.eu> Message-ID: <09410E01-E105-4840-B13B-6289BA554728@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > I haven't looked at the code, but why restrict this to those container > interfaces alone? Isn't some IContainer or OFS-level interface all > that > is required? Once the Plone site root is supported, the code likely > doesn't rely on any of the AT-semantics. it does. it simply stitches the already existing [iv]Cal support in AT together to become a proper feed. it's really just a very small add-on, started out with some 8 lines of code in the (working) prototype. but i guess some `IContainer` interface might work as well, assuming that we'll see mixed AT/non-AT content soon enough... andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/2d8a0e4a/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 5 22:26:51 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 5 22:27:16 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP 237 ready for review In-Reply-To: <498B5DCC.6030407@hannosch.eu> References: <4264EC3A-93C4-411C-973D-FF82DEE74821@zitc.de> <498B5DCC.6030407@hannosch.eu> Message-ID: <950E51B0-2568-458B-AC70-A1A7D070DC81@zitc.de> On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> in short: i'm +1 for merging, but PLT has an error which needs to be >> fixed before the next release. it's not related to the changes, >> though. > > Can you add a ticket for the bug you encountered? From the review > notes > alone, I wasn't able to understand what the problem really is. i'll give you a demo on monday! ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090205/579d5068/PGP.pgp From dukebody at gmail.com Fri Feb 6 23:45:53 2009 From: dukebody at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Israel_Saeta_P=E9rez?=) Date: Fri Feb 6 23:51:27 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #239 ready for review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5e92377e0902061545o32780b7cw6efd2899edbf8f18@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > Hello team, > > I've just finished the base implementation of PLIP #239, adapterise the > ExtensibleIndexableObjectWrapper, for your review. > [...] > The bulk of the code is in a new package, plone.indexer. You can read its > doctest here: > http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/plone.indexer/trunk/plone/indexer/README.txt > I've just wrote a short page in plone.org (still a private draft) to document this feature: http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/using-portal_catalog/custom-indexing-strategies Would anybody mind quick-reviewing it? -- israel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090207/c83f9b14/attachment.htm From ethan.jucovy at gmail.com Fri Feb 6 23:56:58 2009 From: ethan.jucovy at gmail.com (Ethan Jucovy) Date: Fri Feb 6 23:57:06 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: References: <7908A6F2-71ED-4811-9040-385A56BE02DA@zitc.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> i noticed that. in fact, i was trying to figure out how the assigned value ("plone") ended up in `module_name`. i >> ended up looked at the entry point's (the one you get from `pkg_resources.iter_entry_points`) `__dict__`, assuming >> that some magic in `pkg_resources` would translate the "target" to be meant as the module's name. but apparently >> all given value end up as `module_name` in the dict. i suppose i should have had a closer look at entry point definitions first. Ah, yeah, a single entry point basically models a dictionary entry: `module_name` is (part of) the entry point's "value", which is imported as a Python object; `name` is the "key". So an entry point "fleem = my.app.module:func" looks like {{{ >> ep EntryPoint.parse('fleem = my.app.module:func') >> ep.name 'fleem' >> ep.module_name ''my.app.module' >> ep.load() # basically `from my.app.module import func` }}} The entry point object also has a reference to the egg (distribution) that provides it. That's just about all they are, it's simpler than the pkg_resources docs make them sound. :) >> yes, [using an arbitrary entry point name instead of `target`] works. in any case this should be documented, though. Yeah, I'll work on this over the weekend. The docs in general need some cleaning up. >>> Perhaps z3c.autoinclude could check if `os.environ.has_key('Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DISABLED')` and the test runner and/or a buildout option could set that environment variable? >> >> yep, also +1. after all, that's exactly what environment variable are for, aren't they? :) OK, z3c.autoinclude trunk as of r96193 checks for 'Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_PLUGINS_DISABLED' and 'Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DEPENDENCIES_DISABLED' in the environment. > i forgot to mention that it'd be great if you could try to work these out until some time next week. technically the revision deadline is this saturday, of course, but since my review was several days late, i think it's only fair to still grant you a full week to address these issues. i hope the delay doesn't cause too many inconveniences and you'll find the time it takes... n/p, none of this has been too time-consuming yet :) Thanks, Ethan From davidglick at onenw.org Sat Feb 7 18:39:30 2009 From: davidglick at onenw.org (David Glick) Date: Sat Feb 7 18:40:03 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP revisions for #126 and #240 Message-ID: <5EAAB1E9-15B2-4E12-8B47-562543D82619@onenw.org> Andrew and I have made a few revisions to PLIPs #126 (link improvements) and #240 (TTW locking configuration) based on the initial review feedback. Notes on the changes can be found at the bottom of the respective PLIP_xxx_README.txt files in the review buildouts for each of these PLIPs. peace, David Glick Web Developer ONE/Northwest New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the environment http://www.onenw.org davidglick@onenw.org work: (206) 286-1235 x32 mobile: (206) 679-3833 Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter! Practical advice for effective online engagement http://www.onenw.org/full_signup -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090207/d072e8e5/attachment.htm From calvin at sixfeetup.com Sun Feb 8 06:24:31 2009 From: calvin at sixfeetup.com (Calvin Hendryx-Parker) Date: Sun Feb 8 06:24:40 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions Message-ID: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> Hi All, I have addressed most of the issues in the review of my PLIP, but I have a couple more tests in addition to the ones I have added that I'd like to include before the final review is made. I'd very much appreciate it if I could have another day to include these so I can be sure that my PLIP will be included with Plone 3.3. Thanks, Calvin -- S i x F e e t U p , I n c . http://www.sixfeetup.com Phone: +1 (317) 861-5948 x602 calvin@sixfeetup.com ANNOUNCING the first Plone Immersive Training Experience | Sept. 10-11-12, 2009 http://www.sixfeetup.com/immerse From lists at tomster.org Sun Feb 8 16:17:33 2009 From: lists at tomster.org (Tom Lazar) Date: Sun Feb 8 16:17:43 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: <5DDE0C7D-C62C-46B4-B446-3316795A6650@tomster.org> absolutely fine by me. it would be great, though, if you could deliver the final version before wednesday, then i could review it on the last day of the berlinale-sprint here, after that i will be really busy with catching up on stuff. cheers, tom On 08.02.2009, at 07:24, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > Hi All, > > I have addressed most of the issues in the review of my PLIP, but I > have a couple more tests in addition to the ones I have added that > I'd like to include before the final review is made. I'd very much > appreciate it if I could have another day to include these so I can > be sure that my PLIP will be included with Plone 3.3. > > Thanks, > Calvin > > -- > S i x F e e t U p , I n c . http://www.sixfeetup.com > Phone: +1 (317) 861-5948 x602 > calvin@sixfeetup.com > ANNOUNCING the first Plone Immersive Training Experience | Sept. > 10-11-12, 2009 > http://www.sixfeetup.com/immerse > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > From az at zitc.de Sun Feb 8 17:05:21 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Sun Feb 8 17:05:52 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > I have addressed most of the issues in the review of my PLIP, but I > have a couple more tests in addition to the ones I have added that > I'd like to include before the final review is made. I'd very much > appreciate it if I could have another day to include these so I can > be sure that my PLIP will be included with Plone 3.3. fine by me. let us know when the bundle's ready for another review. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090208/630b46d0/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Mon Feb 9 09:57:58 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Mon Feb 9 09:58:28 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <5DDE0C7D-C62C-46B4-B446-3316795A6650@tomster.org> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5DDE0C7D-C62C-46B4-B446-3316795A6650@tomster.org> Message-ID: <68BDEAED-56D6-4EAE-A605-85323E26E37B@zitc.de> On Feb 8, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: > it would be great, though, if you could deliver the final version > before wednesday, then i could review it on the last day of the > berlinale-sprint here, after that i will be really busy with > catching up on stuff. +1. i won't be able to review after wednesday as we'll be going on vacation. not being able to review also mean i cannot possibly change my vote, either, though... ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2rc1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090209/41a9ef54/PGP.pgp From calvin at sixfeetup.com Tue Feb 10 05:55:35 2009 From: calvin at sixfeetup.com (Calvin Hendryx-Parker) Date: Tue Feb 10 05:55:49 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> Hi Team, I just committed my revisions based on the initial review of PLIP 234. I also have included some more docs about the PLIP here: http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip234-inavigationroot-fixes/PLIP_234_README.txt I believe I have addressed all of the concerns brought up by the reviewers. There is a summary of these changes in the PLIP_234_README.txt file. I added tests for some new changes to the calendar tool and found that I had already written tests for the viewlet code changes that didn't get considered in your diffs, but those tests still pass. Those tests are found here: http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/23315 Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, Calvin -- S i x F e e t U p , I n c . http://www.sixfeetup.com Phone: +1 (317) 861-5948 x602 calvin@sixfeetup.com ANNOUNCING the first Plone Immersive Training Experience | Sept. 10-11-12, 2009 http://www.sixfeetup.com/immerse From lists at tomster.org Wed Feb 11 12:24:01 2009 From: lists at tomster.org (Tom Lazar) Date: Wed Feb 11 12:24:20 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: <6E1B5EE5-50D2-4F93-82A3-A83B12F68D76@tomster.org> thanks, calvin! i'll take a look at it ASAP, which probably will mean saturday, though... also thanks for the changeset url, that kind of stuff is really helpful for reviewers (*hint* *hint* to other list members ;-) cheers, tom On 10.02.2009, at 06:55, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > Hi Team, > > I just committed my revisions based on the initial review of PLIP > 234. I also have included some more docs about the PLIP here: > > http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip234-inavigationroot-fixes/PLIP_234_README.txt > > I believe I have addressed all of the concerns brought up by the > reviewers. There is a summary of these changes in the > PLIP_234_README.txt file. I added tests for some new changes to the > calendar tool and found that I had already written tests for the > viewlet code changes that didn't get considered in your diffs, but > those tests still pass. > > Those tests are found here: > http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/23315 > > Please let me know if you have any questions at all. > > Cheers, > Calvin > > -- > S i x F e e t U p , I n c . http://www.sixfeetup.com > Phone: +1 (317) 861-5948 x602 > calvin@sixfeetup.com > ANNOUNCING the first Plone Immersive Training Experience | Sept. > 10-11-12, 2009 > http://www.sixfeetup.com/immerse > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > From danny.bloemendaal at informaat.nl Wed Feb 11 13:52:18 2009 From: danny.bloemendaal at informaat.nl (Danny Bloemendaal) Date: Wed Feb 11 13:52:45 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP revisions for #126 and #240 In-Reply-To: <5EAAB1E9-15B2-4E12-8B47-562543D82619@onenw.org> References: <5EAAB1E9-15B2-4E12-8B47-562543D82619@onenw.org> Message-ID: <082AADC3-37F0-4330-9310-84A0FC8DB6CC@informaat.nl> On 7 feb 2009, at 19:39, David Glick wrote: > Andrew and I have made a few revisions to PLIPs #126 (link > improvements) and #240 (TTW locking configuration) based on the > initial review feedback. Notes on the changes can be found at the > bottom of the respective PLIP_xxx_README.txt files in the review > buildouts for each of these PLIPs. > > peace, > > Ok, I revisited this plip and it looks good now. So +1 for me on this one. Danny. PLIP 126 framework review #3 by Danny Bloemendaal, 2009-02-11 ============================================================= Reviewed this plip after some changes have been made and the behaviour is now much more predictable. +1 on this for merging. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090211/6bca318d/attachment.htm From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 12:05:34 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 12:06:03 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > Hi Team, hi calvin, > I just committed my revisions based on the initial review of PLIP 234. thanks! > I believe I have addressed all of the concerns brought up by the > reviewers. unfortunately i won't have enough time left to look at your changes (leaving for vacation tomorrow). tom will do the extra round of reviewing, though, and i guess one reviewer should be enough in this case (or else maybe another team member wants to take a second look? :)). anyway, just one more comment... > [...] and found that I had already written tests for the viewlet > code changes that didn't get considered in your diffs, but those > tests still pass. > > Those tests are found here: > http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/23315 they did (as a new file). i did notice that test (which is why i added "almost" in "almost none of the changes are actually tested" ;)), but found that one was far from enough. anyway, tom will make sure there are enough now... ;) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/042915fe/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 12:19:15 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 12:19:44 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> Message-ID: <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > [...] i did notice that test (which is why i added "almost" in > "almost none of the changes are actually tested" ;)), but found that > one was far from enough. anyway, tom will make sure there are > enough now... ;) that said i couldn't resist to quickly check the branches for newly added commits... afaics the only tests you actually added are the ones for the calendar portlet[*], though. imho, this is not enough. i think _all_ places affected by the changes in the PLIP need to be tested for correct behaviour for the case when the site root is _not_ the navigation root. of course the other case, i.e. having the nav-root _at_ the site root like it is the default in plone, is already well-tested and not the scope of this PLIP anyway. but i don't think many people have actually used this feature before (as it was partly broken), so we really need more thorough tests for this variant (separate nav-root) now that it has become feasible... > cheers, > > > andi [*] http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24893 -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/1a636c1e/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 12:21:42 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 12:22:09 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > of course the other case, i.e. having the nav-root _at_ the site > root like it is the default in plone, is already well-tested and not > the scope of this PLIP anyway. but i don't think many people have > actually used this feature before (as it was partly broken), so we > really need more thorough tests for this variant (separate nav-root) > now that it has become feasible... forgot to add that i'll trust tom (and the rest of the team) to make an ultimate judgement and will go along as far as my vote is concerned... :) >> cheers, >> >> >> andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/27989cd6/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 12:42:13 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 12:42:40 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: References: <7908A6F2-71ED-4811-9040-385A56BE02DA@zitc.de> Message-ID: <35343488-FEDC-4770-8496-017366A4D8F8@zitc.de> On Feb 7, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Ethan Jucovy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> On Feb 5, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >>> i noticed that. in fact, i was trying to figure out how the >>> assigned value ("plone") ended up in `module_name`. i >>> ended up looked at the entry point's (the one you get from >>> `pkg_resources.iter_entry_points`) `__dict__`, assuming >>> that some magic in `pkg_resources` would translate the "target" to >>> be meant as the module's name. but apparently >>> all given value end up as `module_name` in the dict. i suppose i >>> should have had a closer look at entry point definitions first. > > Ah, yeah, a single entry point basically models a dictionary entry: > `module_name` is (part of) the entry point's "value", which is > imported as a Python object; `name` is the "key". i was missing that info initially, but figured as much after a bit... thanks for clarifying it again, though. >>>> Perhaps z3c.autoinclude could check if >>>> `os.environ.has_key('Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DISABLED')` and the test >>>> runner and/or a buildout option could set that environment >>>> variable? >>> >>> yep, also +1. after all, that's exactly what environment variable >>> are for, aren't they? :) > > OK, z3c.autoinclude trunk as of r96193 checks for > 'Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_PLUGINS_DISABLED' and > 'Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_DEPENDENCIES_DISABLED' in the environment. great. just one more tiny little suggestion: how about catching the key error in the `enable_*` function, so people can use it unconditionally (i.e. without consulting `dependencies_disabled` first)? $ ./bin/zopepy >>> from z3c.autoinclude.api import enable_dependencies >>> enable_dependencies() Traceback (most recent call last): [...] KeyError: 'Z3C_AUTOINCLUDE_PLUGINS_DISABLED' > n/p, none of this has been too time-consuming yet :) :) thanks for the update, ethan. i'm changing my vote to +1. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/21a3f044/PGP.pgp From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 12:54:18 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 12:54:45 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] second round of PLIP reviews Message-ID: 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 from the team could take over the spokesperson responsibilities, in particular doing the counting and reporting back to wichert on saturday (or making sure it gets done). any takers or do i need to pick somebody? :) cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/c796b466/PGP.pgp From calvin at sixfeetup.com Thu Feb 12 13:21:29 2009 From: calvin at sixfeetup.com (Calvin Hendryx-Parker) Date: Thu Feb 12 13:21:39 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> Message-ID: <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:19 AM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > of course the other case, i.e. having the nav-root _at_ the site > root like it is the default in plone, is already well-tested and not > the scope of this PLIP anyway. but i don't think many people have > actually used this feature before (as it was partly broken), so we > really need more thorough tests for this variant (separate nav-root) > now that it has become feasible... I'd be open for suggestions for other tests. A majority of the fixes were templates and they were to use an already existing bit of code functionality that I didn't add like you said. The viewlets were modified to support this and I have the test to confirm it in the base class for the viewlets. If there are some specific tests you'd like to see I'd be happy to add them, but in the end the trickiest piece of code I updated was the calendar tool modifications and I added tests there also. FYI... we have released collective.lineage which depends on many of these fixes and I believe will expand the number of people using this functionality. There are a lot of people excited about this new product and are wanting to deploy it. We actually have 1 site in production with it already. Since this functionality was already in Plone before I got ahold of it I still see this PLIP as a large bug fix that really should be included. Cheers, Calvin -- S i x F e e t U p , I n c . http://www.sixfeetup.com Phone: +1 (317) 861-5948 x602 calvin@sixfeetup.com ANNOUNCING the first Plone Immersive Training Experience | Sept. 10-11-12, 2009 http://www.sixfeetup.com/immerse From raphael.ritz at incf.org Thu Feb 12 13:32:31 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Thu Feb 12 13:32:44 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] second round of PLIP reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499424EF.8010005@incf.org> 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 from the > team could take over the spokesperson responsibilities, in particular > doing the counting and reporting back to wichert on saturday (or > making sure it gets done). any takers or do i need to pick somebody? :) > I should be available this Saturday/Sunday (I hope) so I'll take this on. Raphael > cheers, > > > andi > > -- > zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de > friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 > pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ > plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ > > From optilude+lists at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 13:40:57 2009 From: optilude+lists at gmail.com (Martin Aspeli) Date: Thu Feb 12 13:41:15 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > I'd be open for suggestions for other tests. A majority of the fixes > were templates and they were to use an already existing bit of code > functionality that I didn't add like you said. The viewlets were > modified to support this and I have the test to confirm it in the base > class for the viewlets. > > If there are some specific tests you'd like to see I'd be happy to add > them, but in the end the trickiest piece of code I updated was the > calendar tool modifications and I added tests there also. > > FYI... we have released collective.lineage which depends on many of > these fixes and I believe will expand the number of people using this > functionality. There are a lot of people excited about this new > product and are wanting to deploy it. We actually have 1 site in > production with it already. Since this functionality was already in > Plone before I got ahold of it I still see this PLIP as a large bug > fix that really should be included. 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. Having done something similar in the past (but not read Calvin's diff in detail), I suspect most of his changes were simply to stop people making use of portal_url() when they should've used get_navigation_root(). There may be cases when we could add a "defect" type test to show that the navigation root didn't work before, but now does, but let's not create too much work for what is, in many cases, more about analysing a problem and applying a few surgical fixes, than writing a ton of new code. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book From raphael.ritz at incf.org Thu Feb 12 14:10:40 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Thu Feb 12 14:10:52 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> Message-ID: <49942DE0.9050803@incf.org> 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 mostly a bug fix in nature. While I still plan to take a look on Saturday I won't vote it down for what's being discussed most recently here. Raphael > > Having done something similar in the past (but not read Calvin's diff > in detail), I suspect most of his changes were simply to stop people > making use of portal_url() when they should've used > get_navigation_root(). There may be cases when we could add a "defect" > type test to show that the navigation root didn't work before, but now > does, but let's not create too much work for what is, in many cases, > more about analysing a problem and applying a few surgical fixes, than > writing a ton of new code. > > Martin > From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 15:00:28 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 15:00:56 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <49942DE0.9050803@incf.org> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> <49942DE0.9050803@incf.org> Message-ID: <934400A4-773B-4D4A-98E9-D47EC985CA89@zitc.de> On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Raphael Ritz wrote: > 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 mostly > a bug fix in nature. +1 > While I still plan to take a look on Saturday I won't vote > it down for what's being discussed most recently here. 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, usually we do provide tests to go along with bug fixes as well, to sort of prove things are working correctly now. clearly the case of nav-root != site-root wasn't covered with many tests so far, otherwise we would have seen failures all along. so why not take the opportunity and add a few tests that would have failed without the fixes calvin put in? unfortunately i simply don't have any time left to go through the changesets again and point out tests i'd like to see, but i thought i had already given a generic guideline on what i think is missing. anyway, here's another look at it: if you (temporarily) revert your patches (at least the ones in code), and none of the currently existing tests fail, that's when you should add one that is (and then passes again with your fixes). i don't think that's too much to ask, especially since there are not that many changes (iirc) anyway. but, like i said, i'm running out of time, so i'll leave things to tom and raphael... andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/527e666c/PGP.pgp From raphael.ritz at incf.org Thu Feb 12 15:50:39 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Thu Feb 12 15:51:02 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <934400A4-773B-4D4A-98E9-D47EC985CA89@zitc.de> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> <0413C21D-0A73-4AA6-8AE1-85CF807C9D56@sixfeetup.com> <49942DE0.9050803@incf.org> <934400A4-773B-4D4A-98E9-D47EC985CA89@zitc.de> Message-ID: <4994454F.6080707@incf.org> 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, > usually we do provide tests to go along with bug fixes as well, to > sort of prove things are working correctly now. clearly the case of > nav-root != site-root wasn't covered with many tests so far, otherwise > we would have seen failures all along. so why not take the > opportunity and add a few tests that would have failed without the > fixes calvin put in? > > unfortunately i simply don't have any time left to go through the > changesets again and point out tests i'd like to see, but i thought i > had already given a generic guideline on what i think is missing. > anyway, here's another look at it: if you (temporarily) revert your > patches (at least the ones in code), and none of the currently > existing tests fail, that's when you should add one that is (and then > passes again with your fixes). i don't think that's too much to ask, > especially since there are not that many changes (iirc) anyway. > > but, like i said, i'm running out of time, so i'll leave things to tom > and raphael... I hear you ;-) Don't worry; I'm confident Tom and I will handle. Enjoy your vacation, Raphael > > > andi > > -- > zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de > friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 > pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ > plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ > From lists at tomster.org Thu Feb 12 22:24:19 2009 From: lists at tomster.org (Tom Lazar) Date: Thu Feb 12 22:24:34 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> Message-ID: <6234A04C-A878-43F4-A041-AF9AD5BCD73F@tomster.org> On 12.02.2009, at 13:19, Andreas Zeidler wrote: > On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: >> [...] i did notice that test (which is why i added "almost" in >> "almost none of the changes are actually tested" ;)), but found >> that one was far from enough. anyway, tom will make sure there are >> enough now... ;) > > that said i couldn't resist to quickly check the branches for newly > added commits... afaics the only tests you actually added are the > ones for the calendar portlet[*], though. imho, this is not > enough. i think _all_ places affected by the changes in the PLIP > need to be tested for correct behaviour for the case when the site > root is _not_ the navigation root. > > of course the other case, i.e. having the nav-root _at_ the site > root like it is the default in plone, is already well-tested and not > the scope of this PLIP anyway. but i don't think many people have > actually used this feature before (as it was partly broken), so we > really need more thorough tests for this variant (separate nav-root) > now that it has become feasible... I have reviewed the changes in the documentation and in the three affected packages since december and have conducted another local TTW test. The test showed that the application of INavigationRoot worked as advertised. While I personally still feel that the switch of the root in the navigation tree once you reach a new root is kind of 'creepy' I realize that a) this is intended and b) that in actual deployment the sub-roots are usually served under different domains from the front end webserver, so the effect won't be observable to users. While I agree (with andi), that in a perfect world, this PLIP would come with more tests, I also agree (with calvin, optilude etc.) that this PLIP is by nature more a bug fix than a new feature. I don't think we can reasonably expect that all fixes to Plone must come with 100% test coverage, or else they will not be accepted. Seeing that most changes are actually in template markup and not so much in code and given the test of the base portlet and that no existing tests break I vote +1 on this. Can I guarantee that it absolutely won't break anything? No. Am I convinced that Plone is better with this PLIP than without it? Yes :-) > > >> cheers, >> >> >> andi > > [*] http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/24893 > > -- > zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de > friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 > pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ > plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team From az at zitc.de Thu Feb 12 22:27:42 2009 From: az at zitc.de (Andreas Zeidler) Date: Thu Feb 12 22:28:16 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #234 Review Revisions In-Reply-To: <6234A04C-A878-43F4-A041-AF9AD5BCD73F@tomster.org> References: <405A2CBB-E07E-4140-B095-84F6CC75EFD2@sixfeetup.com> <5C82A633-9702-4078-B45E-9B1EC0C75C67@sixfeetup.com> <8BAAEDBE-F609-4448-9FBA-0E6420C302A7@zitc.de> <0103CB23-A150-4543-A4F2-4F8E312791D8@zitc.de> <6234A04C-A878-43F4-A041-AF9AD5BCD73F@tomster.org> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: > Can I guarantee that it absolutely won't break anything? No. Am I > convinced that Plone is better > with this PLIP than without it? Yes :-) :) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info@zitc.de friedelstra?e 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.2.1 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090212/5b9e1f75/PGP.pgp From G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk Sat Feb 14 11:10:19 2009 From: G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk (Graham Perrin) Date: Sat Feb 14 11:10:31 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #246 ready for review (pending review notes) In-Reply-To: References: <0441378F-454A-4094-90A7-D53AD0BB76D9@zitc.de> <49727B5A.1060000@eurotux.com> Message-ID: Before testing, I aimed to import a known good .ics (a UK Holidays calendar published by Apple) and a well-populated .ics of my own (1,000 or more events). For the import: using p4a.plonecalendar and Calendaring. When I attempt for example: Plone responds: > Calendaring product not installed. 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? Thanks Graham References (expires mid-February 2010). From raphael.ritz at incf.org Sun Feb 15 17:32:12 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Sun Feb 15 17:32:27 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #246 ready for review (pending review notes) In-Reply-To: References: <0441378F-454A-4094-90A7-D53AD0BB76D9@zitc.de> <49727B5A.1060000@eurotux.com> Message-ID: <4998519C.9090901@incf.org> 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 importing events from remote sites but about displaying events as ics feeds. But I do indeed understand your wish to bulk import from such files (this is the subject of the WebDAV plip BTW). When I tested this I went through the effort of generating a few events manually ... Keep us updated on any further insights you may have. Raphael > Thanks > Graham > > References > > > (expires mid-February 2010). > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > From r.ritz at biologie.hu-berlin.de Sun Feb 15 20:42:26 2009 From: r.ritz at biologie.hu-berlin.de (Raphael Ritz) Date: Sun Feb 15 20:42:46 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 review: the final verdict Message-ID: 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 redirect ready for merging PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it ready for merging PLIP 232: Resource Registries Improvements ready for merging (Raphael notes: while we are missing one review I consider this non-critical) PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot ready for merging (Raphael notes: there is still the wish to have more test) PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades ready for merging PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default ready for merging PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper ready for merging PLIP 240: Improve locking configurability ready for merging PLIP 241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code ready for merging PLIP 243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet ready for merging (Raphael notes: i18n support might need some love still but that's not considered a show stopper) PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file ready for merging PLIP 247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins ready for merging Links to further information can be found at http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33 For the Framework Team, Raphael From dukebody at gmail.com Sun Feb 15 23:23:40 2009 From: dukebody at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Israel_Saeta_P=E9rez?=) Date: Sun Feb 15 23:24:06 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] PLIP #247 ready for review (I think) In-Reply-To: <5e92377e0901181148r5f74fc61l8dd89049c8364af8@mail.gmail.com> References: <5e92377e0901181148r5f74fc61l8dd89049c8364af8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5e92377e0902151523k43f19248qb6c5fb6fa8c30d22@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Israel Saeta P?rez wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Ethan Jucovy wrote: > >> >> Some of the things that people have said ought to be discussed about PLIP# >> 247 are: >> 1) impact on server startup time >> 2) implications for test environments >> 3) stabilizing and releasing a new version of z3c.autoinclude >> 4) debugging tools/APIs for z3c.autoinclude >> * 5) documentation and/or code generation templates to explain the entry >> point for plugin authors* >> >> I'll begin working on #3 immediately, since there's plenty I can do there >> while discussion is still happening. >> >> Please let me know if there's anything else I'll need to submit for the >> PLIP's review. >> > > I'm not a member of the Framework Team so this is not mandatory for the > PLIP's review, but as a member of the Documentation Team I would > appreciate number (5). > > Something like "Before, we did this to accomplish this task. Now, we can do > that.", as Wichert (?) suggested, so we would be able to find and update > affected docs easily. > > Thanks in advance! > The buildout manual has been updated (but updates are still private) to reflect this new feature: http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/buildout/copy_of_creating-a-new-package See the new "Automate ZCML loading for your package section". I would appreciate any review input since I'm not sure I've got it right. Thanks! -- israel Documentation Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090216/ca0d12c2/attachment.htm From andrewburkhalter at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 02:21:08 2009 From: andrewburkhalter at gmail.com (Andrew Burkhalter) Date: Mon Feb 16 02:21:16 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 review: the final verdict In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can someone refresh my memory as to who is responsible for the merging and by when? 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 wrote: > > 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 redirect > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with > it > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 232: Resource Registries Improvements > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: while we are missing one review I consider this > non-critical) > > > PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: there is still the wish to have more test) > > > PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 240: Improve locking configurability > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history viewlet > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: i18n support might need some love still but that's > not considered a show stopper) > > > PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins > > ready for merging > > > > Links to further information can be found at > > http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33 > > > For the Framework Team, > > Raphael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090215/f52edadb/attachment.htm From raphael.ritz at incf.org Mon Feb 16 06:12:30 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Mon Feb 16 06:12:44 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 review: the final verdict In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499903CE.8070100@incf.org> Andrew Burkhalter wrote: > Can someone refresh my memory as to who is responsible for the merging > and by when? As I understand it that's Wichert's job now as he is our release manager. Whether he does all the merging by himself or whether he'll ask authors for help is up to him. 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 > > > wrote: > > > 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 redirect > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of > shipping with it > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 232: Resource Registries Improvements > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: while we are missing one review I consider this > non-critical) > > > PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: there is still the wish to have more test) > > > PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 240: Improve locking configurability > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 243: Replace workflow history viewlet with content history > viewlet > > ready for merging > > (Raphael notes: i18n support might need some love still but that's > not considered a show stopper) > > > PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file > > ready for merging > > > PLIP 247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins > > ready for merging > > > > Links to further information can be found at > > http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PLIPTallies33 > > > For the Framework Team, > > Raphael > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > > From G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk Tue Feb 17 08:23:59 2009 From: G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk (Graham Perrin) Date: Tue Feb 17 08:24:10 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] View for rendering events as an iCalendar file: further discussion In-Reply-To: <4998519C.9090901@incf.org> References: <0441378F-454A-4094-90A7-D53AD0BB76D9@zitc.de> <49727B5A.1060000@eurotux.com> <4998519C.9090901@incf.org> Message-ID: <56F68AA4-03B2-458B-9451-55904A7571A1@bton.ac.uk> On 15 Feb 2009, at 17:32, Raphael Ritz wrote: > When I tested this I went through the effort of generating a few > events manually ... > Please note that this PLIP isn't about importing events Sure :) I aim to test with more than a few events to see how server and clients behave, and the swiftest route to a greater number is import (by any means). > Keep us updated on any further insights you may have. > > Raphael Will do. Respecting the readiness to merge, I should take the further discussion away from Framework Team. I may have just one question for Core Developers , the rest will probably be addressed to General Questions . Thanks and regards Graham From wichert at wiggy.net Wed Feb 18 22:20:45 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Wed Feb 18 22:20:55 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP merges Message-ID: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> 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 before it can be merged. (shameless request: I need help with that one!) >From what I can see most PLIPs should be simple to merge and have little or no conflicts with others, so I would like to ask everyone to merge their own PLIP at their own time during the next two weeks. In order to keep things coordinated please announce when you will be doing your merge on the framework-team list. In prepraration for the merges I have created a 3.3 plonenext branch; please use that to merge your work and test the results. When merging keep in mind that you should not modify any branches that are used by Plone 3.2 (or older versions). That might mean you will have to create a new maintenance branch for Plone 3.x and update plonenext 3.2 and plone-coredev. David Glick: - PLIP 126: links redirect - PLIP 240: Improve locking configurability Maurits van Rees: - PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it Florian Schulze: - PLIP 232: Resource Registries Improvements Calvin Hendryx-Parker - PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Hanno Slichting - PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades Wichert Akkerman - PLIP 238: Disable inline editing by default Martin Aspeli: - PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper Andreas Zeidler: - PLIP 241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code - PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file Ethan Jucovy: - PLIP 247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From raphael.ritz at incf.org Thu Feb 19 07:59:05 2009 From: raphael.ritz at incf.org (Raphael Ritz) Date: Thu Feb 19 07:59:28 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <499D1149.9020507@incf.org> 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 before it can be > merged. (shameless request: I need help with that one! Sorry for not catching that one :-( Can you give more details maybe? I don't see anything reported on https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/8835 http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/243 or http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip243-content-history/REVIEW-NOTES.txt (or is it that the 'ulocalized_time()' issue wasn't properly fixed?) Thanks, Raphael From wichert at wiggy.net Thu Feb 19 08:26:06 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Thu Feb 19 08:25:47 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <499D1149.9020507@incf.org> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> <499D1149.9020507@incf.org> Message-ID: <499D179E.3030506@wiggy.net> On 2/19/09 8:59 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: > 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 before it can be >> merged. (shameless request: I need help with that one! > > Sorry for not catching that one :-( > > Can you give more details maybe? I don't see anything > reported on http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip243-content-history/README.txt#25 Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From davidglick at onenw.org Thu Feb 19 22:54:57 2009 From: davidglick at onenw.org (David Glick) Date: Thu Feb 19 22:55:34 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <58413F1C-7C0F-49A7-AABD-F4FE0EB596D7@onenw.org> On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > From what I can see most PLIPs should be simple to merge and have > little > or no conflicts with others, so I would like to ask everyone to merge > their own PLIP at their own time during the next two weeks. In order > to > keep things coordinated please announce when you will be doing your > merge on the framework-team list. > David Glick: > - PLIP 126: links redirect > - PLIP 240: Improve locking configurability Andrew and I will merge these two PLIPs on Tuesday evening Feb. 24 (PST) David Glick Web Developer ONE/Northwest New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the environment http://www.onenw.org davidglick@onenw.org work: (206) 286-1235 x32 mobile: (206) 679-3833 Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter! Practical advice for effective online engagement http://www.onenw.org/full_signup From davidglick at onenw.org Thu Feb 19 23:00:18 2009 From: davidglick at onenw.org (David Glick) Date: Thu Feb 19 23:00:52 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <5af21ed10902181642x6bad283bw31f7ae3d2cf0e1f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> <5af21ed10902181642x6bad283bw31f7ae3d2cf0e1f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06A6B7D1-F1F7-4B5B-9464-194867FF4BDA@onenw.org> On Feb 19, 2009, at 1:42 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > When merging keep in mind that you should not modify any branches that > are used by Plone 3.2 (or older versions). That might mean you will > have > to create a new maintenance branch for Plone 3.x and update plonenext > 3.2 and plone-coredev. > > We really ought to have some kind of map/script to tell us which > branches are used by which versions. This is already part of plonenext. See http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plonenext/3.2/etc/sources for 3.2 and http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plonenext/3.3/etc/sources for 3.3 Hanno, any advice on forward-porting changes that are not compatible with Plone trunk? e.g. the locking stuff in PLIP 240 which uses some KSS for supporting inline editing (I suppose the correct answer is to create a new branch of the package for Plone trunk and omit the parts that are no longer relevant) David Glick Web Developer ONE/Northwest New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the environment http://www.onenw.org davidglick@onenw.org work: (206) 286-1235 x32 mobile: (206) 679-3833 Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter! Practical advice for effective online engagement http://www.onenw.org/full_signup -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090220/0e9b8928/attachment.htm From hannosch at hannosch.eu Thu Feb 19 23:14:23 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Thu Feb 19 23:14:38 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <06A6B7D1-F1F7-4B5B-9464-194867FF4BDA@onenw.org> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> <5af21ed10902181642x6bad283bw31f7ae3d2cf0e1f6@mail.gmail.com> <06A6B7D1-F1F7-4B5B-9464-194867FF4BDA@onenw.org> Message-ID: <499DE7CF.7040302@hannosch.eu> David Glick wrote: > Hanno, any advice on forward-porting changes that are not compatible > with Plone trunk? e.g. the locking stuff in PLIP 240 which uses some > KSS for supporting inline editing (I suppose the correct answer is to > create a new branch of the package for Plone trunk and omit the parts > that are no longer relevant) If there's changes that require different code bases for different versions of Plone, branching is the answer. Plone trunk is no different in this. If there's new code that relies on KSS, you can either remove the feature for trunk or rewrite it in a way that does not require KSS. Sorry, no magic bullet here. Hanno From hannosch at hannosch.eu Fri Feb 20 17:45:36 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Fri Feb 20 17:45:54 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> Message-ID: Wichert Akkerman wrote: > In prepraration for the merges I have created a 3.3 plonenext branch; > please use that to merge your work and test the results. > Hanno Schlichting > - PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades PLIP 237 is merged. New releases of PLT and PTS are made and plonenext is updated with new versions and branch locations. Finally I updated the PLIP page on plone.org (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/237) and included the documentation I wrote for the review bundle. PLIP status was moved the "Merged" :) Hanno From hannosch at hannosch.eu Fri Feb 20 18:19:48 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Fri Feb 20 18:20:07 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <499D179E.3030506@wiggy.net> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> <499D1149.9020507@incf.org> <499D179E.3030506@wiggy.net> Message-ID: <499EF444.7080000@hannosch.eu> Wichert Akkerman wrote: > On 2/19/09 8:59 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: >> 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 before it can be >>> merged. (shameless request: I need help with that one! >> >> Sorry for not catching that one :-( >> >> Can you give more details maybe? I don't see anything >> reported on > > http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip243-content-history/README.txt#25 I tried to look into this, but I wasn't able to provoke any error or see any obvious place where one could occur. Can you give me some concrete steps to follow to provoke the error? Hanno From andrewburkhalter at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:57:59 2009 From: andrewburkhalter at gmail.com (Andrew Burkhalter) Date: Fri Feb 27 04:58:07 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> Message-ID: PLIP 126 is now merged and the review bundle archived. I've tried to be as comprehensive as possible here, but I hope any mistakes I've made will be pointed out. Tasks that I believe need to be done from here are: - Need new release of plone.app.controlpanel (looks like wichert, hannosch, or optilude need to do this) - Need new release of plone.app.portlets (looks like this is either wichert or optilude) - Possibly changes to versions.cfg and etc/versions with plonenext/branches/3.3, I didn't take the time to figure out what was needed. - Relevant merging to trunk Am I on the right track here? Thanks! Andrew On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > In prepraration for the merges I have created a 3.3 plonenext branch; > > please use that to merge your work and test the results. > > > Hanno Schlichting > > - PLIP 237: Minor i18n upgrades > > PLIP 237 is merged. New releases of PLT and PTS are made and plonenext > is updated with new versions and branch locations. > > Finally I updated the PLIP page on plone.org > (http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/237) and included the > documentation I wrote for the review bundle. PLIP status was moved the > "Merged" :) > > Hanno > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/attachments/20090226/c66e8cc4/attachment.htm From wichert at wiggy.net Fri Feb 27 22:14:50 2009 From: wichert at wiggy.net (Wichert Akkerman) Date: Fri Feb 27 22:15:01 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Reminder: PLIP merges are due Message-ID: <20090227221450.GA26378@wiggy.net> The response to my mail from last week about PLIP merges has been a disappointing: only 4 out of 12 PLIPs have been merged so far. In order to prevent this from becoming an everlasting process I am going to set a deadline: PLIPs have to be merged by the end of Saturday, March 7. Any PLIPs not merged by then will be postponed until Plone 3.4. When merging keep in mind that you should not modify any branches that are used by Plone 3.2 (or older versions). That might mean you will have to create a new maintenance branch for Plone 3.x and update plonenext 3.2 and plone-coredev. This is the list of unmerged PLIPs: Maurits van Rees: - PLIP 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it Florian Schulze: - PLIP 232: Resource Registries Improvements Calvin Hendryx-Parker - PLIP 234: Standardizing our use of INavigationRoot Martin Aspeli: - PLIP 239: Adapterise the Extensible Indexable Object Wrapper Andreas Zeidler: - PLIP 241: Clean up auto-sort: auto-order code - PLIP 246: View for rendering events as an iCalendar file Ethan Jucovy: - PLIP 247: Automate ZCML Loading for Plone Plug-ins Regards, Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. From hannosch at hannosch.eu Sat Feb 28 13:51:25 2009 From: hannosch at hannosch.eu (Hanno Schlichting) Date: Sat Feb 28 13:51:46 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges In-Reply-To: <499EF444.7080000@hannosch.eu> References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> <499D1149.9020507@incf.org> <499D179E.3030506@wiggy.net> <499EF444.7080000@hannosch.eu> Message-ID: <49A9415D.70103@hannosch.eu> Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> On 2/19/09 8:59 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote: >>> Can you give more details maybe? I don't see anything >>> reported on >> http://dev.plone.org/plone/browser/review/plip243-content-history/README.txt#25 > > I tried to look into this, but I wasn't able to provoke any error or see > any obvious place where one could occur. > > Can you give me some concrete steps to follow to provoke the error? I got some more details from Wichert and I think I fixed the Unicode problem now. Wichert, can you have another look at the diff.pt template in CMFEditions? I wasn't sure which of those diff-invocations is really needed. Hanno From m.van.rees at zestsoftware.nl Sat Feb 28 21:21:12 2009 From: m.van.rees at zestsoftware.nl (Maurits van Rees) Date: Sat Feb 28 21:21:31 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 3.3 PLIP merges References: <20090218222045.GA2407@wiggy.net> Message-ID: Andrew Burkhalter, on 2009-02-27: > > PLIP 126 is now merged and the review bundle archived. I've tried to be as > comprehensive as possible here, but I hope any mistakes I've made will be > pointed out. > > Tasks that I believe need to be done from here are: > > - Need new release of plone.app.controlpanel (looks like wichert, hannosch, > or optilude need to do this) > - Need new release of plone.app.portlets (looks like this is either wichert > or optilude) A new release of plone.app.portlets is also needed for plip 197 that I just merged. > - Possibly changes to versions.cfg and etc/versions with > plonenext/branches/3.3, I didn't take the time to figure out what was > needed. It looks like nothing is needed here at this point. > - Relevant merging to trunk I'd say you can do this now. > Am I on the right track here? Looks like it to me, but plip 197 is the first plip I did, so I'm no expert. :) > Thanks! > > Andrew And thank you for creating a new plone.app.portlets branch so I did not need to do that for my plip. :) Cheers, -- Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/ "This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl] From maurits at vanrees.org Sat Feb 28 21:16:51 2009 From: maurits at vanrees.org (Maurits van Rees) Date: Sat Feb 28 21:30:18 2009 Subject: [Framework-Team] Plip 197 merged (FeedParser/plone.app.portlets) Message-ID: <20090228211651.GD23989@ip4da647da.direct-adsl.nl> Hi, I have merged plip 197: Add FeedParser as external requirement instead of shipping with it. Affected is plone.app.portlets. I did not create a maintenance branch for this for Plone 3.2 as Andrew Burkhalter already did this for plip 126. I merged my changes to the new 1.2 branch and to trunk. In the versions.cfg of plonenext 3.3 I added this line: FeedParser = 4.1 This is currently the only FeedParser release on pypi btw. The roadmap item is marked completed and merged: http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/197 I think that's all there is to it. If not, please speak up. Cheers! -- Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/ "Yes, we study economics, got to make the money make some kind of sense." - Geoff Mann