On 11 March 2012 16:38, Érico Andrei <eri...@plone.org> wrote: > On 11/03/12 00:42, Martin Aspeli wrote: > >> >> 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). >> > > Yes, I read the FAQ and I agree with it but my criticism is that this > brings another step, another layer, another page to read, another slide to > presentations. New developers will love it until the moment they need > ZopeSkel, Paster...
They are orthogonal. In fact, plone-devstart installs ZopeSkel for you, and gives you hints about when and how to use it. > > >> The buildout created by plone-devstart installs a 'safe' ZopeSkel so that >> you can use that to create new packages. >> > > I really tested plone-devstart and I really liked, but I'm already used to > carry the whole (heavy) toolbox to work with Plone development. New > developers are not, and after giving training sessions to them it becomes > very clear that python buildout + zopeskel + paster + zopeskel.* is **too > much** and plone-devstart will replace only the bundle python buildout + > "zopeskel to create a new buildout". > > Just to be clear, plone-devstart is amazing, the whole plone-devstart + > zopeskel + paster + zopeskel.* is the issue. Possibly, although I'd argue a script like plone-devstart (or the installers with added devtools) is a better way to get you a working environment with those tools and lowering the install overhead, than forcing a manual install of ZopeSkel (which is fraught with environment danger). Equally, a simple script isn't going to replace everything that ZopeSkel is. Martin
_______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list product-develop...@lists.plone.org https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
