[Zope-CMF] Re: Plone needs a release this week

[yuppie]

Hi!


Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 5 Aug 2007, at 20:15, yuppie wrote:
>>> I'm supposed to do a CMF 2.1.0 release today, but the state of these 
>>> issues is unclear. Wichert, did you look at it? There are no checkins 
>>> into either CMF or GS as far as I can see. Export now yields this:
>>> placeless component:
>>>   <utility interface="Products.CMFCore.interfaces._tools.IMetadataTool"
>>>      object="portal_metadata"/>
>>
>> This is not what I would call placeless. My example looks like this:
>>
>> <utility component="foo.bar" interface="foo.IBar"/>
>>
>> 'foo.bar' is the dotted name of an object in a python module, not in 
>> the ZODB. The 'component' feature is not used by the CMF, but 
>> GenericSetup claims to support it.
> 
> If you're speaking about something that's not even used by the CMF then 
> that won't be a shostopper for the CMF. For GS, IMHO, this is a bit of 
> an esoteric feature. I don't know any place that uses it. If there's a 
> decision to be made between "get the goddamn release out" and "wait 
> until someone figures out this piece in GS" I'll choose the first option.

At least it should be documented somewhere that 'component' support is 
broken and not ready for use.

>>> the site root:
>>>   <utility interface="Products.CMFCore.interfaces._content.ISiteRoot"
>>>      object="SITE_ID"/>
>>> I was able to import a snapshot that contained a componentregistry 
>>> export of this format, though.
>>
>> I guess this only works with a site that has the same ID and no 
>> sub-object with this ID. Not very reliable and confusing.
> 
> Well, I imported it into a site with a different ID. The "Components" 
> tab you provided shows the "old" ID, unfortunately. However, I don't 
> know if that makes a difference in real life or if it's just a cosmetic 
> issue.

It makes a difference: It means ISiteRoot returns the wrong site. This 
is easy to fix - it was fixed once, but without unit tests that made 
sure it stayed fixed. Wichert volunteered to have a look at this issue.

>>> Can I go ahead and roll a GS 1.3.1 and then a CMF 2.1.0 using GS 
>>> 1.3.1 or are there any showstoppers left?
>>
>> I made a list of things that should be fixed in my opinion. But I 
>> can't decide what is a showstopper and what isn't.
> 
> If it's not an obvious showstopper I feel it's not worth holding up 
> Wichert. Would you agree?

Wichert is the person who volunteered to work on these issues, so nobody 
besides himself is holding him up.


Cheers,

	Yuppie