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

Ricardo Alves rsa at eurotux.com
Tue May 5 22:56:36 UTC 2009


Steve McMahon wrote:
> My only concern about calling Hanno's incremental change list 4.0 is
> that we don't suffer from big-number expectation syndrome.

This is the biggest risk I guess, a major release with just a minor set 
of visible (UI) improvements, will bring bad publicity.

>
> If we start thinking that 4.0 "has to be big enough" to justify the
> numbering jump, and start expanding too much on the "yes" list, we
> won't get this out in 2009. And, it won't serve the purpose of
> delivering enough new stuff to keep folks excited while waiting for
> the big UI items.
>
> So, a couple of questions for us all:
>
> 1) If we call it Plone 4.0, can we restrict ourselves to a modest list
> of improvements that will actually get coded this summer and tested
> this fall?
>
> 2) If we call it Plone 4.0, can we resist ourselves to changes that
> will not break existing theme products or well-constructed Plone 3 add
> ons?

Isn't that already the promise of the 3.x series? I mean, to be keep 
backward compatibility with Plone 3.0 addons? I still think that some of 
these improvements should be included in one or more 3.x releases.



Ricardo


> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ross Patterson <me at rpatterson.net> wrote:
>> Lennart Regebro <regebro at gmail.com>
>> writes:
>>
>>> 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.  :(
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The NEW KODAK i700 Series Scanners deliver under ANY circumstances! Your
>> production scanning environment may not be a perfect world - but thanks to
>> Kodak, there's a perfect scanner to get the job done! With the NEW KODAK i700
>> Series Scanner you'll get full speed at 300 dpi even with all image
>> processing features enabled. http://p.sf.net/sfu/kodak-com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Plone-developers mailing list
>> Plone-developers at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Ricardo Alves <rsa at eurotux.com>
Eurotux <http://www.eurotux.com> 





More information about the Framework-Team mailing list