[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Plone 3.2 plans

Wichert Akkerman wichert at wiggy.net
Sat Aug 2 22:37:09 UTC 2008

Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > The packaging goal we want to achieve is to move to a fully eggified 
> > release. I have done some experimentation with that and the result works 
> > remarkably well: I have created a 3.2 branch of ploneout (at 
> > https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/ploneout/branches/3.2) which is almost 
> > fully eggified. It uses the the exact same code as Plone 3.1.x, and 
> > unless you look at the filesystem layout it is Plone 3.1. This makes me 
> > confident that this is a goal that we can achieve.
> Great!
> What isn't eggified yet?

The products currently still in the 3.2 ploneout are: CMFActionIcons
CMFCalendar, CMFDefault, CMFDiffTool, CMFEditions, CMFPlacefulWorkflow,
CMFTopic, CMFUid, DCWorkflow, GroupUserFolder and PloneTranslations.
I expect that we'll be able to have eggified versions of these in a week
as well. You may also be interested in hearing that now that Florian has
created an egg structure for kupu ploneout trunk does not use a single
product anymore.

> Also - what about Zope itself? I know Andreas is kean to move Zope 2 to 
> all eggs soon (and make use of Zope 3.4, which is all eggs). It may make 
> sense to co-ordinate here, since a fully eggified CMF/Plone is really 
> only half the picture.

This will be a topic for the black forest sprint in August. I
eggification of Zope to be a goal for Zope 2.12, which means we won't be
able to benefit of that for some time. In the meantime we should use the
fake-zope-eggs option of plone.recipe.zope2install.

> > Of course there is no reason to stop working on great new features for 
> > Plone: in parallel with the work on Plone 3.2 we will also be working on 
> > preparations for Plone 3.3. I will sent a separate mail with plans for 
> > 3.3 during the coming week.
> Great. :-)
> I think we're due a "new features" process. Perhaps we could start 
> soliciting PLIPs for 3.3 and get the review process organised at the 
> same time that we package up 3.2. I presume 3.2 won't have any PLIPs to 
> review (well, maybe one or two package related ones) in any case.

For 3.2 I only want to look at PLIPs that deal with installers. There
are two PLIPs listed for 3.2 at the moment. 229 is purely an installer
extension and should be easily doable, especially since I already
implemented almost the same thing for the Jarn Plone hosting
environment. 230 is borderline but I'm willing to look at it if it is
done in the form of an optional new package.


Wichert Akkerman <wichert at wiggy.net>    It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                   It is hard to make things simple.

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list