[Framework-Team] Re: The new Plone 4.0, was Re: Plone 3.5

Ross Patterson me at rpatterson.net
Tue May 5 21:20:25 UTC 2009

Lennart Regebro <regebro at gmail.com>

> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 22:05, Ross Patterson <me at rpatterson.net> wrote:
>> Sorry if I'm resurrecting an already fairly resolved debate.  None of
>> the concerns I raise here are enough to vote -1 one calling it
>> 4.0.  But if enough people feel as I do here, maybe we should discuss
>> a little further.  What about plone 3.9?
> 3.0.x was very buggy, and I think that has been somewhat saved by the
> upgrades to 3.1 and 3.2 being so painless. I think it would be, for
> that reason, a big mistake to introduce bigger changes in 3.X unless
> we can make sure the upgrade is quite painless and the changes are
> *very* stable.

Yeah, I guess trying to have a release line that can grow is trying to
have it both ways.  I'm very concerned about the expectations we've been
developing about Plone 4 and the impact that will have on perceptions
when we say, "Yeah, that's plone 5 now" or worse yet the even less
confidence inducing "Yeah, that's plone trunk now."  But I guess the
right response to that issue is to be more disciplined in our messaging
in the future and *not* talk about release numbers before the release
process has had a chance to weigh in.  IOW, any perceptual/expectation
problems we have from this may be our just desserts.  :)

+1 to calling it 4.0.  +1 to constraining ourselves to not include
additional disruptive changes in the newly established 4.0 line and thus
to only include them in subsequent major versions.  +100 to not talking
about version 5 until the 5 FWT has actually done enough of it's process
to have some formal establishment of expectations.

Then I'll just have to buck up and tell people that a better skinning
story will *not* being Plone 4 afterall and that I can't tell them it
will be in Plone 5 and that somehow they shouldn't be discouraged by
that.  :(


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list