On 06/20/2010 12:54 AM, Chen Lei wrote: >> I agree, we've got lots to talk about. The most important things are: >> 1. Packaging guidelines >> 2. Component upgrade guidelines >> 3. Namespace issues (addressed above) >> 4. Zope 2 vs Zope 3 (again, addressed above) >> >> I think we should talk sooner rather than later. Anyone want to setup a >> meeting time? >> >> Just an FYI, it is my current plan (probably because I am completely >> ignorant as to how much pain this will cause) is to simply package the >> latest version of all Zenoss dependencies and then work through whatever >> bugs I find. I'm in a somewhat unique situation though in that I have >> the ability to commit to upstream. This may be a less than ideal plan >> for other applications. >> >> As I mentioned to Jonathan on IRC, I think the best plan is to try to >> get something working'ish as soon as possible and then try to shakedown >> the details from there. If we bog ourselves down in policy (an easy >> quagmire to get stuck in when in zopeland) we may get too discouraged to >> continue. Not to dismiss what will be the very needed policy, I just >> want to make sure no-one gets burned out. >> >> One thing we may want to consider is a "tenant" policy. That is, the >> zope stack as a whole has "tenants" (Zenoss, Plone, etc). The tenants >> would be formally defined and any upgrade to any component in the >> platform would require signoff from all the tenants who depend on that >> component (or some derivation thereof). I suspect that the short-term >> trade-off of buildouts/bundling is not as valuable as the long-term >> value of testing a software product across multiple versions of its >> dependencies. >> >> Nathaniel >> _______________________________________________ > > I suggest to stop of submitting package review for zope components > first before we complete the wiki page and treat all of the above > issues(mainly dependencies and namespace issue), we have a lot of time > to do so. F14 is targeting python2.7, we still need to wait this. Hope > most of those components can be compatible with python2.7. > > FYI, zope2 can co-exist with zope3, but plone4 can't co-exist with > plone3(plone4 is an update for plone3). > > We also need to set up a maillist like other SIG to talk zope-related issues.
I have not submitted any zope packages for review, currently they are living in my own git repo. When I say "get something working" I mean in a separate repo. Once we have something working and with good standards learned from actual practice, we can figure out a merge strategy. I do suspect someone is going to have to port zope2 to python 2.7. In fact, I think we should focus on those packages using CPython right now and make sure they work on 2.6 and 2.7. Pure python is a bit easier. Who can setup a Zope SIG mailing list? Nathaniel _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
