[Framework-Team] Re: tomorrow's PLIP review deadline

Andreas Zeidler 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
> #212: Use jQuery Javascript Library			tom
> #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  
> following

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...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-framework-team/attachments/20080218/6f1311b9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list