Re: Plone 3.5
Carsten Senger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.teams.framework,gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.devel,gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hanno Schlichting schrieb: > While everyone is waiting for Plone 4 and its rather long timeline, some > people have been thinking about how to bridge the gap between the > current stable 3.x releases and the future. > > The general idea that seems to have met some consensus is to go for a > Plone 3.5 release up next. We'd skip any 3.4 release and go for a 3.5 > that is similar in spirit to the Plone 2.5 release. It tries to both > refresh some of our technical underpinnings in addition to some more > intrusive feature changes we didn't allow ourselves in the 3.x series so > far. [...] > This is only a proposal that needs community feedback and encouragement > at this point to make it into an official roadmap. The next steps are to > have an open discussion about this for the next one to two weeks. If it > meets general favor, we will appoint the new/old framework team and let > them recommend a release manager to the Foundation board for official > nomination. Improving Plone and cleaning up things is always a good thing. But a 3.5 major release will break the users expectations to have a stable backward compatible 3.x release cycle. It's also confusing to name a major version x.5 with all the consequences like incompatible 3.x Add-Ons. The naming of Plone 2.5 was a rather unfortunate thing. The proper naming for a backward incompatible release should be 4.0. I think nobody wants a short living 4.0 release and rename the current Plone 4 to Plone 5. I'm in favour to put as much changes into a 3.4 that are backward compatible. I think it's ok to change some defaults for new Sites that can be easily changed by an administrator like TinyMCE/optional packages/Additional Roles that can. Thus I don't now what consequences this would have for our documentation team. Changes that bring other than really minor incompatibilities for 3.x add-ons are a no-go for a 3.x release imho. ..Carsten