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 -> 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_______________________________________________
ZopeSkel mailing list
zopes...@lists.plone.org
https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-zopeskel
