http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/284 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Anthony Bosio** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue HISTORY.txt file not generated by "plone" template (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/68) **Issue Details**:: No preliminary .docs/HISTORY.txt file is generated by "plone" template. This causes buildout to fail which may confuse new users. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2012-04-11T03:11:13 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/283 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Anthony Bosio** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue Bug in "plone" template creates two packages inside egg (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/67) **Issue Details**:: Using the "plone" template in ZopeSkel 2.21.2 to create an add-on product egg called collective.foo results in a ./collective/foo namespace package and a ./src/collective/foo namespace package. collective.foo -------------- -/collective --/foo ---configure.zcml ---__init__.py [ def initialize(context): ] ---tests.py -/docs -/src --/collective ---__init__.py [ __import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__) ] ---/foo ----__init__.py [ empty ] * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2012-04-10T02:24:41 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/280 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Adding plone.app.testing to templates** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **hvelarde**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Adding plone.app.testing to templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/65) **Response Details**:: plone.app.testing 3.x is for Plone 3.x: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plone.app.testing/3.0a1 plone.app.testing 4.x is for Plone 4.x: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plone.app.testing/4.0.2 just let me know. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-10-07T01:21:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/279 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **ZopeSkel is about promoting best practices, so mixed messages are bad** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Cris Ewing**. Response Information -------------------- Issue ZopeSkel is about promoting best practices, so mixed messages are bad (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/64) - Issue state: Unconfirmed -&gt; Resolved **Response Details**:: I think your objection here has more to do with parsing wording than with actual intention. The zopeskel readme does not say that the preferred way to get a plone instance is with zopeskel. What is says is that a typical plone development workflow follows the path of building plone4 with a zopeskel buildout and then adding in one or more packages. The wording in the zopeskel readme is not especially clear, so I'll fix that, but I agree with the general principal that for most use-cases, starting with the plone installers is the best way to get going. The layout of the installers is well unified, the buildout.cfg structure is standardized, and having newcomers use that method is a great help to the community when it comes time to help newcomers figure out what went wrong. Advanced developers and deployers who are getting ready to deploy a live site may start with a zopeskel buildout template, but these folks know what they are doing and can read past the warnings, especially now that they are more friendly in nature. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-10-06T23:13:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/278 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Adding plone.app.testing to templates** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Cris Ewing**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Adding plone.app.testing to templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/65) - Issue state: Unconfirmed -&gt; Postponed **Response Details**:: well, the only one's for which it would work at all would be plone4 stuff, right? Adding plone.app.testing to earlier versions of plone leads to all sorts of buildout version conflict fun. I would suggest that after we merge templer into the trunk, we can start thinking about doing stuff like this, making the testing infrastructure of a package depend on the version of plone for which it is intended, etc. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-10-06T23:07:05 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/277 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **plone template should have an option to generate skins folder and related xml files** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Cris Ewing**. Response Information -------------------- Issue plone template should have an option to generate skins folder and related xml files (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/54) - Issue state: Confirmed -&gt; Postponed - Severity: Medium -&gt; Important **Response Details**:: I'm going to put this off until after we've merged the templer work in zopeskel 3.x It would be possible right now to add an entire set of structure like this to a template like the plone one, but to do so means that you have to add it for __all__ runs, and then delete the whole damned thing after the run is complete. The structures setup in templer makes this much easier to accomplish. This will not be implemented in zopeskel 2.x unless someone else steps up to do it. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-10-06T22:57:25 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/276 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Command-line variables are taken only for commands like "create" but they don't work for localcommands like "addcontent".** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Cris Ewing**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Command-line variables are taken only for commands like "create" but they don't work for localcommands like "addcontent". (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/43) - Issue state: Confirmed -&gt; Postponed **Response Details**:: Putting this on hold, because at the moment this is by design. We may be able to find a way to fix this going forward, but with the 2.x infrastructure it will be prohibitive to fix. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-10-06T22:59:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/275 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Luca Fabbri** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue the "view" subcommand must change my MyCustomTypeView to MyCustomType (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/66) **Issue Details**:: When using paster addcontent view The wizard ask me for a view name. Is a common error (only for me?!) to specify a final "View" after the view name. This will generate a lot of code like: MyCustomTypeViewView Maybe ZopeSkel can remove the final "View" if present. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-09-15T12:54:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/274 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **hvelarde** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue Adding plone.app.testing to templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/65) **Issue Details**:: I would love to add plone.app.testing to ZopeSkel templates. Which ones do you consider appropriate for this? * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-09-08T21:37:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/273 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **plone3_buildout shouldn't be installing Plone 4** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Jean Jordaan**. Response Information -------------------- Issue plone3_buildout shouldn't be installing Plone 4 (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/63) **Response Details**:: When running plone3_buildout, the Plone Version default value is coming from plone4_buildout.Plone4Buildout line 41. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-29T10:06:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/272 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Broken zopeskel/templates/plone_hosting/base.cfg_tmpl** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Jean Jordaan**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Broken zopeskel/templates/plone_hosting/base.cfg_tmpl (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/25) **Response Details**:: Hmm, I see we still don't have a template for recent ZEO clusters. Does this mean that no one is using ZopeSkel to prime their clusters? Perhaps everyone has a buildout.cfg which works for them. I'll see if I can figure out a fix tomorrow. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-24T15:18:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/271 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Jean Jordaan** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue ZopeSkel is about promoting best practices, so mixed messages are bad (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/64) **Issue Details**:: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ZopeSkel states that zopeskel is the preferred way of getting a Plone instance. But plone3_buildout states that the preferred way is "to use the appropriate installer". Either the plone3_buildout template should be deprecated and not offered by default, or the text should clarified. I'd like to suggest that starting from buildout is not mostly for developers: it is probably even more for deployment (e.g. preparation for using `collective.hostout`). * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-24T15:11:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/270 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Jean Jordaan** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue plone3_buildout shouldn't be installing Plone 4 (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/63) **Issue Details**:: It doesn't make sense for a plone3_buildout (note: THREE) to default to offering version 4. (Besides that it's an outdated hardcoded version 4.) $ ./bin/zopeskel plone3_buildout plone plone3_buildout: A buildout for Plone 3 installation This template creates a Plone 3 buildout (for most users, a preferred way to get an installation of Plone 3 is to use the appropriate installer, as these are all buildout-based since Plone 3.1) [...] Plone Version (Plone version # to install) ['4.0.5']: * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-24T14:59:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/269 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Jean Jordaan** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue Don't show all templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/62) **Issue Details**:: The `./bin/zopeskel` command shows a very mixed bag of templates. The `plone2_theme` template is not under "Plone Theme Development". The `plone3_theme` template is for Plone 4 themes also. A number of the templates are for unsupported Plone versions, deprecated technology (like KSS), or irrelevant technology (like Silva). This is quite a lot of noise for something that is meant to be a tool fostering best practices. It would be great if the `./bin/zopeskel` generated for a Plone installation would only list the relevant and currently recommended templates. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-24T14:35:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/268 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Update warning text for buildout templates** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Alex Clark**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Update warning text for buildout templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/59) - Issue state: Unconfirmed -&gt; Resolved - Target release: None -&gt; 2.20 **Response Details**:: Fixed in 2.20 * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-09T21:11:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/267 <pre>A new response has been given to the issue **Update warning text for buildout templates** in the tracker **Issue tracker** by **Alex Clark**. Response Information -------------------- Issue Update warning text for buildout templates (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/59) **Response Details**:: Fixed in http://dev.plone.org/collective/changeset/243280, pending new release. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-08-09T20:25:23 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/265 <pre>Hi all, Those who I've sprinted with in the past on ZopeSkel know I've been complaining about PasteScript for a long time. I've finally started working on something to replace it. It's in the second phase of the design process; I'm working on the implementation plan right now. So requirements are gathered, approach defined, parameters for the first release are set. The why is worked out, now I'm on the how :) Nothing is set in stone right now, so it's a good time to discuss the project with interested parties and solicit help and feedback. If you know of other groups/lists/etc that might be interested, please let me know. I'm planning to sprint on the project at the Plone conference in San Francisco this year (still working out the logistics). I will probably establish another mailing list at some point, but I think the project is relevant enough to ZopeSkel that I'm OK with discussing it here (objections?). My plan is to ultimately port ZopeSkel/templer to use Crushinator. It's being designed as a general use toolkit/framework, but it was designed from the ground up with ZopeSkel in mind. #zopeskel is typically emptyish, so it might be a good place to hold off-list or out of band discussion on Crushinator. (my user name is jjmojojjmojo, by the way) The design document is here: http://code.google.com/p/lionfacelemonface/wiki/CrushinatorDesign I've also presented on the project at a recent TriZPUG meeting, which amounts to a quick overview/summary. The slides are available at: http://trizpug.org/Members/jj/crushinator-presentation-07282011/crushinator-presentation.pdf Thanks, JJ </pre> Josh Johnson 2011-08-03T12:58:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/264 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Luca Fabbri** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue namespace with 2 or 3 levels must became an option, not a template itself (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/61) **Issue Details**:: Very often we need to put a theme, or an archetype product, inside a huge project, were we need a company.project.xxx namespace. The only way right now is tu use the "plone.app" template and write down all information manually, or use the right template then fix all manually. Other companies (quintagroup) developed additional template, for example a 3 level theme template (quintagroup.themetemplate). Al this can be avoided if the namespace deep level will became an option for every template, not related to the kind of template. * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-07-25T08:45:35 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/263 <pre>A new issue has been submitted to the **Issue tracker** tracker by **Cris Ewing** and awaits confirmation. Issue Information ----------------- Issue namespaces in theme egg not suitable for diazo themes (http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/60) **Issue Details**:: Following the rather dated instructions from http://www.treebrolly.com/blog/turbo-plone-theming-with-xdv-diazo, we use zopeskel to create a theme egg. using this syntax: ../bin/zopeskel plone plonetheme.name this creates a configure.zcml file that is missing the plone namespace declaration. {{{ &lt;configure xmlns="http://namespaces.zope.org/zope" xmlns:five="http://namespaces.zope.org/five" xmlns:i18n="http://namespaces.zope.org/i18n" xmlns:plone="http://namespaces.plone.org/plone" &lt;!-- missing this line --&gt; xmlns:genericsetup="http://namespaces.zope.org/genericsetup" i18n_domain="plonediazo.asu"&gt; }}} (this bug first reported on plone trac instance by dwbear75: https://dev.plone.org/plone/ticket/12003) * This is an automated email, please do not reply - plone.org Administrator</pre> plone.org Administrator 2011-07-12T22:36:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/259 <pre>Hi, I am just reading changes in the latest ZopeSkel Dexterity templates: http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/zopeskel.dexterity/trunk/zopeskel/dexterity/localcommands/templates/dexterity/content/ Why we need to create one template folder per content? This seem to be unnecessary bloating of the source code. Why content types folder was removed? This was one of the folders which actually made sense, even if you had 2-3 content types defined. </pre> Mikko Ohtamaa 2011-06-07T07:56:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel/256 <pre>Greetings, all A great deal of preparatory work has been done this weekend on porting zopeskel templates into the new templer namespace packages. There is still much to be done, but I think things have gone far enough now that it is time to begin work on preparing for zopeskel 3.0. I would like to cut a 2.x compatibility branch and allow the trunk to begin to move toward depending on templer packages. This move will eventually leave the current ZopeSkel package as an empty egg with nothing but dependencies on templer namespace packages. Are there any comments or questions from the larger community? Do any of you have any objections before this work begins? Speak now, or forever regret not telling me to hold off :) Greetings from the rapture sprint at PSE11 Cris </pre> Cris Ewing 2011-05-21T14:55:07 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.zopeskel