On 11 March 2012 06:54, Érico Andrei <eri...@plone.org> wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, it is a very good initiative. We need to lower the entry > barrier to Plone development in order to attract new people. > > But, even though something like plone-devstart is a good idea, I might > ask if it was the right move or even if this is what we needed the most. > > Last night while talking to Clayton and Liz about the whole > ZopeSkel/Paster/Templer/Crushinator situation it became clear that the > story for new developers is a complete mess. > > There are good ideas, great developers and high expectations. There > isn't a working solution. Some people jumped on Templer, most people still > need to pin ZopeSkel <2.99 (damn local commands). > > This is bad, and having a new shinny thing that "eases" Plone > development just made the situation even worse -- as long as someone must > use it and then <zopeskel create> & <paster addcontent>. > > Time to kill most of the available options, focus on **just one** and > have a compelling story to tell to newcomers. >
I agree, though that's a different topic. Please see the plone-devstart FAQ for the reasons why this *isn't* based on ZopeSkel or one of its component parts. In short, the dev environment setup needs to be as simple as possible if it is to try to deal with potentially 'broken' environments (e.g. no working setuptools). The buildout created by plone-devstart installs a 'safe' ZopeSkel so that you can use that to create new packages. Martin
_______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list product-develop...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
