Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here
On 13.05.2009, at 01:23, Steve McMahon wrote: By my reading, here is the list of those willing to participate in a Plone 4 framework team: Raphael R. Ross P. Matthew W. David G. Calvin H.P. Alec M. Erik R, Laurence R. [...] If you'd like your name added, or removed, please put in a message soon. i think, i just disqualified myself by not having read the framework list for over two weeks now :( sadly, that is a pretty accurate indicator of my current resources for unpaid, non-family related commitment in general, so i'm afraid i'll have to pass. tom ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies
Raphael Ritz wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: >> I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope >> 2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible. Jens seems to have fixed a single statement that prevented the CMF 2.2 / Zope 2.11 combination just now. > So that means Zope 2.12 instead, right? I still think we should have a discussion about the Zope version to use. 2.11 is a pretty no-brain simple update that gets us ZODB 3.8 (blobs) and the last Zope 3.4 release with largely minor bugfixes and no real changes. There's really not much to anything in that release except for being slightly less outdated than 2.10. Zope 2.12 on the other hand is generally more ambitious, gets us the Zope Toolkit wild bunch, ZODB 3.9 (RelStorage support), Python 2.5 and 2.6 support, full eggification and with Acquistion redux a path out of Acquistion land. I think someone has to try and see what kind of changes are acutally required to make a current Plone 3.3rc3 run on Zope 2.12 or even better a real client side with a collection of add-ons. Otherwise we have a long list of desirable features without knowing what's the cost for it. > Generally speaking, I'm a bit uncomfortable with jumping > from Zope 2.10.x to 2.12.x as this will reduce the chances > of reacting to deprecation warnings which is of particular > importance for all our add-on developers. I'm afraid we'll > see lots of broken add-ons without prior warnings. One interesting thing to note here is that the concept of deprecation warnings has been abolished by the Zope community now. You won't get any deprecation warnings anymore at all, but import statements are left in place in old locations to give you some form of infinite backwards compatibility support. There might be a number of cases where those might have been forgotten, but those could be fixed. The intended new way forward is to use a not-yet-existing tool (possibly a mode in the test runner) that can warn you of imports from non-canonical locations. So if you feel like reducing your dependencies you can look at these and replace imports from some zope.app.foo packages with zope.bar potentially loosing the dependency on zope.app.foo. In general this might mean a much lower risk to upgrading than we fear. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 dependencies
Wichert Akkerman wrote: I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible. So that means Zope 2.12 instead, right? Do we have an estimate of what that implies on our side? Generally speaking, I'm a bit uncomfortable with jumping from Zope 2.10.x to 2.12.x as this will reduce the chances of reacting to deprecation warnings which is of particular importance for all our add-on developers. I'm afraid we'll see lots of broken add-ons without prior warnings. If there is nothing we can do about this (and it seems so) we could still consider to have Plone 3.x move to Zope 2.11 with 3.4 or 3.5. Just thinking out loud (and without knowing myself how much differences there are between Zope 2.10 and 12 that do affect us) ... Raphael Wichert. - Forwarded message from Jens Vagelpohl - From: Jens Vagelpohl To: Zope-CMF List Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] Zope dependency Message-Id: <7d23df64-b4dc-4c8e-8a51-188e8b34a...@dataflake.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:57:08 +0200 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On May 26, 2009, at 10:21 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: The CMF eggs, even on trunk, still advertise compatibility with Zope 2.10. I believe we had agreed to target Zope 2.12 with trunk - please correct me if that's wrong. If we do want Zope 2.12 I would like to go through before the first CMF 2.2 beta and do the following: - adjust all setup.py files to show the Zope2 egg as dependency, which will imply the "Zope2 >= 2.12dev" dependency - go through and delete all BBB code for Zope versions earlier than 2.12 If anyone thinks that's a bad idea please speak up. I think we are targetting Plone 4 at CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11 at the moment, so that would be bad for us. I'm guessing you are not aware that there already is a hard dependency in CMFDefault. In essence, I would not be setting a new policy, I would document the current situation. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkobruQACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJadACfa9oLhpOAluaPN4QNqGf8UW26 4V8AmwSNnABEZwAQwpq1XddErphVHW0o =o1v4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - zope-...@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests - End forwarded message - ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Plone 4 dependencies
I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible. Wichert. - Forwarded message from Jens Vagelpohl - From: Jens Vagelpohl To: Zope-CMF List Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] Zope dependency Message-Id: <7d23df64-b4dc-4c8e-8a51-188e8b34a...@dataflake.org> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:57:08 +0200 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On May 26, 2009, at 10:21 , Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote: >> The CMF eggs, even on trunk, still advertise compatibility with Zope >> 2.10. I believe we had agreed to target Zope 2.12 with trunk - please >> correct me if that's wrong. If we do want Zope 2.12 I would like to >> go >> through before the first CMF 2.2 beta and do the following: >> >> - adjust all setup.py files to show the Zope2 egg as dependency, >> which will imply the "Zope2 >= 2.12dev" dependency >> >> - go through and delete all BBB code for Zope versions earlier than >> 2.12 >> >> If anyone thinks that's a bad idea please speak up. > > I think we are targetting Plone 4 at CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11 at the > moment, so that would be bad for us. I'm guessing you are not aware that there already is a hard dependency in CMFDefault. In essence, I would not be setting a new policy, I would document the current situation. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkobruQACgkQRAx5nvEhZLJadACfa9oLhpOAluaPN4QNqGf8UW26 4V8AmwSNnABEZwAQwpq1XddErphVHW0o =o1v4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - zope-...@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests - End forwarded message - -- Wichert Akkerman It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
