[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Plone 3.2 and 3.3 planning
wichert at wiggy.net
Sun Sep 7 20:57:46 UTC 2008
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > We need to get Plone 3.2 and 3.3 on the road. Contrary to previous
> > releases I am not going to produce a complete schedule for the whole
> > release process this time around - we've seen too often that those
> > schedules keep changing anyway. Instead I'll keep planning the next two
> > steps in the process for each release.
> That sounds like a good idea.
> > Lets start with Plone 3.2. This release will be a maintenance release
> > for Plone 3.x in all aspects except packaging technology: it will be
> > fully egg based. The first two steps for this release are:
> > * egg releases of all components ready before October 1st
> > * first alpha release during the Plone Conference
> We also need to determine what we do with existing eggs that have
> dodgy/missing dependencies, and whether or not we can make
> plone.recipe.plone optional (or just a dumb wrapper around zc.recipe.egg).
We already have some suggestions and discussion on that and I have a
local git tree which tries to solve a lot of this. I'll commit that back
to svn after my vacation in a few weeks.
> > For Plone 3.3 we will start with a round of PLIP previews, during which
> > the framework team can provide a verdict on the desirability of proposed
> > PLIPs. The criteria are correct technical design, correct user interface
> > design, and the need merge the PLIP in core instead of maintaining or
> > maturing it as an add-on. The dates are:
> > * PLIPs to be submitted before October 5th
> > * framework team gives verdict on all PLIPs before October 20th
> I assume this is about PLIPs in principle, rather than code/bundles?
> I think we need to give people a bit more time if we're talking about
> code, especially since we want people to help with the 3.2 work (and
> testing!) as well.
This is not about code at all, it is about deciding early on if the
PLIPs are desirable and correct so we can immediately inform the PLIP
authors. I don't want people working very hard at a PLIP when we already
know that it will not be accepted or that it will need to be changed.
> > The planning is geared around the Plone conference; I am hoping that the
> > framework team will be able to take schedule one or more discussions
> > there to discuss these PLIPs, if possible with the PLIP authors present.
> That's a good idea. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be nice to
> give people a chance to come up with and work on PLIPs during the
> post-conference sprint. In the past, we've seen a spike in PLIPs around
> sprints as people focus on one thing or another.
> I think it'd make sense if the current Framework Team could decide
> whether they'd prefer to have the PLIP deadline, say, on the Friday
> following the conference (October 17th) with this in mind, or if they
> would benefit more from having time to discuss PLIPs at the conference
> and thus keep the deadline for the 5th.
There is always a reason to wait for another date. I think a lot of
people are coming up with ideas while preparing / psyching up for the
conenference, so this schedule makes sense to me.
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