[Seaside-dev] about going alpha

[Philippe Marschall]

2008/10/4 Lukas Renggli <renggli at gmail.com>:
>>  Issue 48
>>  IMHO not a must have for an alpha. Messing around with cookies should
>>  be pretty rare in Seaside. I can implement the suggested fix but I
>>  need someone to review it. I especially need input on comment 4.
>
> I don't care about cookies.
>
>>  Issue 100
>>  IMHO not a must have for an alpha or even 2.9.
>>
>>  Issue 104
>>  IMHO not a must have for an alpha or even 2.9.
>
> Yes, but this might break API compatibility.
>
>>  Issue 124
>>  Julian, do it. Although it IMHO does not have to happen absolutely for an alpha.
>>
>>  Issue 132
>>  Absolutely critical. Relates to Issue 124.
>
> I think this is solved.
>
>>  Issue 163
>>  What is left here?
>
> http://code.google.com/p/seaside/wiki/LoadOrder
>
>>  Issue 168
>>  As described in comment and mails. If nobody has any opinion on this
>>  I'll just do as I please. This means prefixing the categories with
>>  Seaside- and naming the versions 2.8.999.alpha1.
>
> I don't think that the Universe approach works.

What are the issues you see? What do you propose instead?

> Nobody is using
> Universes (with the exception of Web-Dev Image maker)

Do you have anything to support this claim?

> and this makes
> loading just more complicated.

> If don't want XML and Universe in my
> image for a deployment, what should I do then?

What do you do if you don't want Monticello in your image for
deployment? If we provide a Universe there's nothing stopping us from
making an MCM or .cs.

>>  Issue 174 - 178
>>  You guys did it, you fix and test it.
>
> After his weekends papers are out, sure.
>
>>  Issue 190
>>  Low prio and must have for alpha don't go together.
>
> Agree.
>
>>  Not responding means agreeing. Otherwise we get nowhere.
>
> Why the sudden hurry?

Written above. I fear that it might take at least half a year or more
to get something that people can try if we don't start focusing now.

Cheers
Philippe