[Framework-Team] Re: tomorrow's PLIP review deadline
az at zitc.de
Sun Feb 17 23:40:32 UTC 2008
On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Tom Lazar wrote:
> judging by andi's summary and the recent reviews we currently have
> the following plips that have only one review
thanks tom for putting together that overview. i've made it home a
little bit earlier and decided to double check things while i was
reading up on review notes anyway...
> #187: Working Out-of-the-box WebDAV raphael
> #202: Support inline validation and editing [...] raphael
> #207: Allow Custom Portlet Managers andi
> #208: Adapter-Based Local Role Lookup andi
> #215: Include new KSS versions tom
> #217: Use Adaptation for Workflow Assignment andi
> #220: Improve browser layer support andi
turns out that #220 has also been reviewed by raphael, and he's had a
look at #212 as well. otherwise the list's complete. however,
considering that a few of those are not exactly trivial, i don't think
we can leave it at that. imho, _at least_ #187, #212 and #215 need to
be reviewed for a second time, and #202 and #212 should probably also
see another round of click-tests. i'd like to get some feedback about
this, most importantly, but not exclusively from the other team members!
> also, we now would need to read all the remaining review notes and
> cast our votes based on them. does that mean, we need to check out
> all plips because not all review notes have been posted to the PLIPs
> in the PSC.
all PLIPs[*] contain clickable links to their respective review
bundles, which makes it rather easy to get to the review notes in
> where do we collect the votes? again in the PSC or here on the list?
like i said, please cast them "in the respective tickets". collecting
and counting them from posts to the lists will take me much longer
again, and this way the load gets distributed a little more...
> based on my own reviews and those that i have read, cast a +1 on the
please cast these votes again in the trac tickets, and please also
cast votes on the PLIPs not in your list. btw, the vote should
normally be either be -1 or +1. "abstained" should only be used when
the voter was involved in the implementation of the PLIP, or else
needs some give some good reason, imho. we don't want to end up with
[*] except for #209, which has no bundle
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info at zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Framework-Team