On May 13, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Chris McDonough wrote: >> On 5/12/09 12:00 PM, Malthe Borch wrote: >>> 2009/5/12 Chris McDonough<chr...@plope.com>: >>>> If we ever do release an 80%-compatible publisher replacement, we >>>> should call it >>>> something other than "repoze.zope2". >>> I doubt if we're really talking 80% though; if as Hanno suggests, >>> it'll run CMF, Plone and what other popular Zope 2 apps/libraries, >>> isn't it more like 95%? In that case, I think the name can remain >>> the >>> same. >> >> Since those systems don't have any well-understood APIs themselves >> (at least >> historically), apps written on top of them do plenty of arbitrary >> things. >> Putting some 80% thing out there and telling folks "Plone and CMF >> run on it" >> without some "porting guide" is a recipe for endless maillist >> conversations with >> people not-in-the-know... "but now I get this KeyError in this app >> code I >> inherited four years ago... can you help me?" <shudder>. >> >> Breaking certain arbitrary things is fine, but maybe for such a >> thing to match >> the goals of the original "repoze.zope2", there has to be a widely- >> published >> list of each backwards incompatibility, showing "real world" >> symptom of a >> breakage and providing a workaround. Doing a good job at >> documenting breakage >> symptoms and workarounds is usually far more work than actually >> doing the coding >> to rip out some feature (I find it usually takes about 4X as long). >> >> If we can't afford this (and I sure can't personally), I'm not sure >> what we'd >> end up calling it. plone.dot.someting? zope.dot.something? > > +lots to calling this something other than 'repoze.zope2', which has > always been about bending over backward to provide full BBB for > Zope2 apps.
repoze.plope has a nice ring to it ;^) -Casey _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
