[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote: > Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit > what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has > been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I > see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of > zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. > > I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project > that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project > may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as > zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 > will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large > number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this > would radically change the nature of this debate. I was counting on you making exactly this suggestion. :-) I agree with all of that. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description > of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend > PyCon, but I'm very curious) http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Talks They're just basic "How to develop with Zope" and "...CMF" talks, with as much Five as I can squeeze in since it's 2006 and it would be criminal to ignore it :-) I will not even remotely attempt to be comprehensive or deep. It will be very challenging to work in the short time slots alotted! I was a bit surprised that both talks were accepted, I figured I'd be trumped by presentations from better-known people, but maybe there weren't any! -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Paul Winkler wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. Me too. PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2. That'd be really cool. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend PyCon, but I'm very curious) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 11/24/05 8:54 AM, "Chris McDonough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: >> I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I >> remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of >> Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its >> codebase. > > I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my > mind; it was a pure win. > > - C As was I. Five has brought me and a few others I know closer to Zope 3. This is a huge win. Many of us have lots of experience to bring to the benefit of the Z3 community. As a result, I am excited to take even more strides to Z3. Phillips goal is a good one. The challenge is if there is resistance, how to smooth the bridge. Rather then Z3 developers shoot it down outright, they should provide reasonable alternatives (other then doomsday scenarios). It is a good thing to bring more developers into the Z3 community, many of us Z2 developers are hungry for this. I don't know the answer for every developer on either side of this argument, but there must be an effective compromise out there. The two groups need to work to come to that solution and not alienate one or the other or blindly shoot it down and hope it will go away. It's unreasonable to do so. Taking my ball and heading homely, Andrew ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. > > Me too. PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform "à la" Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... + lots to this... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jim Fulton wrote: > Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > >> Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: >> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository > > > I love this idea! Ok. > But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it. Perhaps so. Other people have given me that impression too, so there might be some truth in it. > In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself > should be, especially the idea of "core". A couple of years ago, in the > Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in "the core" of Zope 3. At the > time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction. > > Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to > revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. > There has been a trend to manage important components separately and > link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and > continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate > this trend, IMO. I agree. > I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 > project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). > This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller > projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that > vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, > but they will both share a large number of components which neither > of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature > of this debate. Maybe not so. I think the essential vibe of the proposal remains: we want to converge on a technical level. And, as it has been expressed through my prosopal, it is my belief that this can be best achieved in one sandbox, not two. The following paragraph is a clear statement of yours on priorities, which I'll take as an edict. As my proposal points out, I set priorities a bit differently, but nonetheless I want to narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3 as soon as possible, too. > On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first > like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to > see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and > narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the > effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the > Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it > already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on > soon: > > - Use a common publisher framework +1 > - Use a common security framework +1, though that'll be hard... I'll probably have to pass on this one. > - Share common ZPT implementations +1 > I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. Me too. > After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit > the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how > the Zope application server efforts should be managed. Sounds like a good idea. I'll also soon bring in a proposal dealing with some minor issues that allow us to close many smaller gaps. Like someone in this huge thread suggested (can't remember who), there won't be much left of Zope 2 than Zope2, OFS, AccessControl, Acquisition, ZPublisher and Products... > I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be > happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and > merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. +100 > P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) Tell me about it :). Philipp ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:17:02 -0800, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework - Use a common security framework - Share common ZPT implementations Can I add "use a common datetime implementation"? ;) I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. Thanks a lot for your clarification, Jim - and on behalf of the Plone community, thanks for making things easier to plan around. If we know that such a transition is coming, we can plan for it. Reuniting the two efforts is critical for the survival of everyone involved in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 worlds. P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) P.S. Try plone-users. Bring your waders. ;) -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:42 AM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote: - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the Z3 community to backwards compatibility as there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where he says "I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture" as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. That's good! But maybe you can clarify. You said in response to Phillipp's proposal that you needed to make deep changes to Zope 3 in the past and if the Z2 repository was merged you would be unwilling to make such contributions again. The implication seems to be that being able to change the codebase without regard to its external dependents is one of your main requirements for Z3 contribution. Is that not what you meant? - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I love this idea! But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it. In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself should be, especially the idea of "core". A couple of years ago, in the Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in "the core" of Zope 3. At the time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction. Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the "object filing system" (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them "contain". Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework - Use a common security framework - Share common ZPT implementations I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how the Zope application server efforts should be managed. I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. Jim P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of interests". I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make good software and not have different entities fight on framework technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology. On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound. Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a strong community of interests. I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force people into communities through technology. How do you know what I want? That's an expression. I don't mean "you" in particular. It's like saying "people" want to, "one" wants to, "you want to" ... I indeed do not understand your point. I'm not sure you understand mine, as you seem to be partially telling me things I already understand, and partially arguing with things that aren't my position. Regards, Martijn I don't think it's very important; it was just a point of view that I was expressing for the sake of the analysis trying to separate community issues from technological issues (trying to not put everything in the same bag). But sure, if every technology is to be considered as a social project with the goal to change people's mind, then there is no reason to make any difference between the two. I think you're giving to the word "technology" more meaning than I do. Regards /JM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Chris McDonough wrote: On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. It makes me happy to hear that. Thanks! Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jim Fulton wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote: ... People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they wanna buy a bridge? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. The arguments against this were: * there's a lively development community around Five, don't worry * Five has a minimal impact on Zope 2; Zope 2 sources itself weren't changing. Both were true. I don't think it was claimed that your development style wouldn't be affected, as obviously we hope people will actually *use* Five in Zope 2 development. With Zope 2.9, this story is starting to change, as Zope 3 technology is making it deeper into Zope 2. Then again, I think the people who worried then have been becoming more familiar with Five since then, so hopefully appreciate it more now as a feature, not just as a potential maintenance burden. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: ... People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they wanna buy a bridge? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. +100 Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 05:36, Martijn Faassen wrote: > I don't think that threats to leave and portrayals of utter doom are a > fair way to discuss this, Stephan. I must say I find it extremely ironic > to hear from you that stalling Zope 3 for several months is a death blow > to Zope 3 -- where was this sentiment in the past? :) Note that I don't claim that my leaving would stall the development. I just use my case as an example. I always consider myself of someone, who accepts a very high bar for contributing. So, if I think the the bar is too high, my thinking goes, then others will also conceive it as too high and that causes the stalling. Everyone is replaceable, I have learned that in the US. But a certain group might not as easily be. > Like it or not, merging the repository or not, you'd better get used to > the fact that Zope 2 developers are here in your community and that they > will speak up to let their interests be known. It's in your interest to > make us happy, actually, as we're working to make Zope 3 a better > community and a better system. I know that The Zope 2 people are around. And I try to answer Five questions on the lsits and on IRC as good as I can. I also have nothing against hearing the interest of the Zope 2 community. But I am also in a position where I must protect the interests of the Zope-3-only community as well. And in *my* opinion, in this particular case the Zope 2 community has a lot to gain at the expense of the Zope-3-only community. I have outlined my arguments for that statement in the many E-mails before. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lennart Regebro wrote: > I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope > 2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2 > publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal > with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things. Exactly. In this case Zope2 will be a more a 'configuration' of Zope3. Well, I'm repeating my self here ... > > At that point, Zope2 will more or less be Zope3 + App, DateTime, OFS, > Products and some other stuff. Then something more of a merge might > make sense. > yup. This is my impression. This is too early... > Up until then, we have a functioning system now, and I'm guessing the > benefits will not outweigh the work. I can only agree with this on this. J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhbZWGhoG8MxZ/pIRAjA5AJ9NdWa0lfhoPrngxVK7CV6ttSPqpACeM9Pk IXBQi5KCZotRxRoO+uJp/j0= =mZRW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 03:57, Roger Ineichen wrote: > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will > contribute more. I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 > development. This is a really good point. It is not that the Zope 2 community has a lot of developers to bring to the table. The Zope 2 community also struggles getting issues resolved and features implemented. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of interests". I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make good software and not have different entities fight on framework technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology. On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound. Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a strong community of interests. I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force people into communities through technology. How do you know what I want? I indeed do not understand your point. I'm not sure you understand mine, as you seem to be partially telling me things I already understand, and partially arguing with things that aren't my position. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope 2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2 publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things. At that point, Zope2 will more or less be Zope3 + App, DateTime, OFS, Products and some other stuff. Then something more of a merge might make sense. Up until then, we have a functioning system now, and I'm guessing the benefits will not outweigh the work. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I like this analysis. :) I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects more complicated than code, "higher level", etc. I don't necessarily agree with the underlying assumptions. While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I really think that this is not the right level to solve community issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing will happen. Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the "technical" and the "community" level is far less clear than you make it seem. Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's *minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go hand in hand. Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2 and Zope 3 development. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and* community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not artificially separate the two issues. Regards, Martijn Hi Martijn, I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of interests". I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make good software and not have different entities fight on framework technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology. On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound. Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a strong community of interests. I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force people into communities through technology. Regards, /JM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 03:57, Roger Ineichen wrote: > > And if > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. > > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. Yep, I was implying that in my post. I will never want to depend on anyone when implementing a feature. I have been burned too often when asking others for help. Noone can guarantee help! (including me, Jim, Philipp, Time, Fred, or anyone else) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Can you read and potentially fix doctests? I *know* you can :). Tell me, > other than the fact that you keep saying you refuse to learn Five, makes > fixing a Five doctest different from a, say, zope.app.tree doctest? It's > not like you've modified a line here or there in other people's code before > which is why your particular dislike of Five surprises me. Yes. Because I worked very hard the last 3.5 years to have a very deep and fairly complete understanding of Zope 3. This is the reason I can fix doctests and bugs in almost every part of Zope 3. I do not want to spend time acquiring this skill in Five or Zope 2 (again). I have no motivation to do that. I have been a Zope 3 developer for over 3 years and I have worked very hard trying to make (some) money with Zope 3 when it was not easy to do so. Now that I have finally plenty of Zope 3 work, you come around and force me to learn Five and Zope 2 again, if I want to continue developing for Zope 3. And that's plain bullshit. The strong resistance of some of the other pure Zope 3 developers should give you a hint. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 24 Nov 2005, at 10:54, Florent Guillaume wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. My vote is a +1 too. +1 from me, too jens ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. > > You're over-irrationalizing here. We all know that the Zope 2 code > structure has flaws, but it's not like Zope 3 is perfect either. I don't > think clutter is a real problem here, so let's not make it one. It is opinion against opinion. This is a deadlock. I Am not going to reply anymore, because (a) it is Thanks Giving and I am going out of town and (b) I am just repeating myself anyways. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > > Why would it stall Zope 3 development? > > > > Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. > > You still haven't given me a good reason why we would actually *lose* > contributors. Because they will not bother contributing, if the prospect is that they have to fix Five things; something they have nothing to do with. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I like this analysis. :) I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects more complicated than code, "higher level", etc. I don't necessarily agree with the underlying assumptions. While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I really think that this is not the right level to solve community issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing will happen. Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the "technical" and the "community" level is far less clear than you make it seem. Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's *minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go hand in hand. Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2 and Zope 3 development. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and* community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not artificially separate the two issues. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote: > - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the > Z3 community to backwards compatibility as > there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where > he says "I have made deep changes in the past that affect > the entire architecture" as if this may happen again at > any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the sourcecoderepository
Hi there, Roger Ineichen wrote: [snip] I really think we should stop draw a vision where we will get a on cklick migration for custom projects. Then this is what people normaly expectt if we speak about a migration path. What vision is this? I don't think anybody has been proposing this vision. I'm not sure how any such visions relate to this discussion anyway. There will be a lot of work to migrate such a application. And I'm not sure if it's the best way to migrate via Five. What'a about the idea to write a new application pure based on Zope3 and then migrate the existing data in the ZODB? I guess this will be much easier for many projects then migrate via existing hooks and reflect every future refactoring over the next years. One question: Who will pay for all this work? Given lots and lots of free programmers that will do all this development, this can happen. I don't see these resources, though. :) So, we usually don't have that luxury. People have real projects in production and we want to start using Zope 3. One main route open to us maintaining existing applications is one of gradual evolution. Of course the other alternative is to forget about evolving towards Zope 3 at all and Zope 2 just going its own way, but I don't think anybody wants that, right? Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. My vote is a +1 too. Maybe it is time retract the proposal? Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from people using Five. We are not even getting bug reports. Maybe because the small part of Zope 3 they use through Five is well tested? Frankly if someone refactors Zope 3 and this causes tests breakage in Zope 2 or Five tests, a Zope 2 or a Five developer will be happy to fix them very quickly, and there's a 50% chance that it will reveal something missed in the Zope 3 tests. Also I've seen some comments that the Zope 3 base will become "polluted", that's nonsense, there will always be "pure" packages of Zope 3 out there without the Zope 2 part. Remember this is a proposal about merging repositories only, so that lots of time is not wasted setting up sandboxes, merging stuff left and right, and running tests in some forgotten area that also matters. And if Zope 3 developers don't want to run the Zope 2 tests because they're costly in time, it's trivial to do so. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi [...] > > Martijn Faassen wrote: > > > ... > > Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image > > indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. > There is a lot > > of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing > > particularly well in this competition, something we need to > fix, but > > that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that > > inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing > we can do at > > present to grow the Zope 3 community. > > > > Regards, > > > > Martijn > > > Hi, > > It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology > and zope3 wants the zope2 community. > > I think the question about the technology should be treated > as such on a > technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common > repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, > collaborating on > common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but > without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). > > But the question about the communities involves more complicated > aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, > strategies, etc. > The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher > level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a > social contract > is agreed on. > > So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological > level even though lots of it can .. +1 for that Regards Roger Ineichen > Regards > /JM > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Some comments after reading this thread: This may very well be not the right time for this codebase merge to happen -- there is a lot of resistance. For one, we don't want to lose Stephan Richter. ;) I do believe however that such a right time very well may occur at some point in the future. Jim has repeatedly said that at some point in the future Zope 2 and Zope 3 may become profiles of the same application. I like this vision. I don't know whether Jim would agree, but in such a situation it would make sense to me to have both Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the same repository. You can also turn that around and say it's more likely to happen if they actually *would* be in the same repository -- that's Philipp's innovative idea. I am glad this discussion took place. It makes people's positions more clear. I believe it's good that Philipp's proposal and this discussion has prepared people's minds for such a possible future scenario. Maybe it will never happen. Perhaps we'll have a better alternative. We'll see. To the Zope 3 developers -- Zope 2 is a major user of your technology now. Zope 2 developers got a stake in Zope 3. The Zope 2 usecase is at least as important as that of any other software that uses Zope 3. Zope 2 is also different from the other software -- it's a framework with a shared community, common roots, and a lot of shared code, and the users of this framework actively want to evolve towards Zope 3. Zope 2 developers will therefore become increasingly more visible within the Zope 3 community. We won't be dropping Zope 2 for Zope 3 easily, as we can't. We have huge codebases to maintain and to grow, and they're built on Zope 2. It would make bad business sense to drop them. We are trying to do something quite difficult -- evolve the Zope 2 codebase, the same codebase some of you are so afraid of, into a situation where it's closer to Zope 3. All the time we need to keep our applications up and running. Perhaps appreciate the complexity of this task for a minute; Zope 3 is not the only impressive software development activity that takes place in our Zope community... I think we have a lot to offer. Some support would be appreciated. Thank you, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: ... Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. There is a lot of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing particularly well in this competition, something we need to fix, but that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing we can do at present to grow the Zope 3 community. Regards, Martijn Hi, It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. Regards /JM ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: UI improvements
Chris Withers schrieb: Tino Wildenhain wrote: Here is the list w/ "improvements" ante portas: 1) Icons for add-dropdown list +1 2) History + History compare for all objects and more useable diff +10 ...but how does this work when the objects can't sensible show history or be compared? Not sure which objects would fall in this category. All Objects in ZODB have their history - they just dont show it by default. Comparison is of course specific to a class. Historycopy is of course another thing. It works for all objects but especially folders are a bit sensible if some subobjects got renamed - thats why I dont support history copy on folders. 3) warning when commiting stale edit forms in ZPT, python script (expect hight discussion here ;) -0 Not so hight as expectted ;) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Stephan Richter wrote: [snip] So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in anticipation of more community involvement? This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. I don't think that threats to leave and portrayals of utter doom are a fair way to discuss this, Stephan. I must say I find it extremely ironic to hear from you that stalling Zope 3 for several months is a death blow to Zope 3 -- where was this sentiment in the past? :) Like it or not, merging the repository or not, you'd better get used to the fact that Zope 2 developers are here in your community and that they will speak up to let their interests be known. It's in your interest to make us happy, actually, as we're working to make Zope 3 a better community and a better system. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the sourcecoderepository
Hi Philipp > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Philipp von Weitershausen > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: zope3-dev@zope.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > zope-dev@zope.org > Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in > the sourcecoderepository > > Roger Ineichen wrote: > > Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never > > contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a > > proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer > > to decide. > > Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community! > > Really, I'm quite tired of trench wars like Zope 2 vs. Zope > 3. Like Martijn said, we need > to come together, not apart. I'm starting to get the feeling > that some Zope 3 developers > rather see Zope 2 die than embrace some of its experience and > community. May I remember > everyone again that we once said we'd do something about the > transition (we even boldly > called it "backward compatability" back then, but even I > thought that this was quite too > unrealistic). So far, nobody from Zope 3 has done anything in > that direction, it's always > been left to the Zope 2 people. Don't take me wrong, I'm not > accusing, it naturally > developed that way. But now that Zope 2 people want to join > efforts, the Zope 3 > developers close the gates under the excuse of saving their > "early adoption" investment? that's not fair. I didn't say something in this direction. I'm only tired to hear thing like; if we do this or that, Zope2 developer will come and solve all our missing parts or fix everything. If Zope 2 developer will join the development on Zope3 there are very welcome. And if you see the past, they allways get answer from the mailinglist. I dont think one of each framework is better then the other, but they are to different for such a merge. I really like to see more real work done from Zope2 developers in this direction before we take such a project on our shoulders. (Again I don't say they do nothing, but there is to less interest or commitment which makes me belive that this is the right time to do a merge.) I whouldn't argument this way if I whould see more then 2% of Zope2 developers working on a migration path for Zope2 to Zope3. And don't tell me "not merging the trunk" is a show-stopper for that. And please stop telling that there will be a migration path for somthing. I guess there will never be such a path. Perhaps custom products can be rewriten based on Zope3 libraries, but a real migration path like known from other software will never be supported. Normaly Zope2 based projects are to highly customized and this will make it impossible for a clear migration path. Perhaps this will be different for standard use of a Plone or Silva. Butdo you really know somebody where is using Plone or Silva out of the box? I really think we should stop draw a vision where we will get a on cklick migration for custom projects. Then this is what people normaly expectt if we speak about a migration path. There will be a lot of work to migrate such a application. And I'm not sure if it's the best way to migrate via Five. What'a about the idea to write a new application pure based on Zope3 and then migrate the existing data in the ZODB? I guess this will be much easier for many projects then migrate via existing hooks and reflect every future refactoring over the next years. This will be another reason for not having Zope2 in the Zope3 trunk. As I know, Stephan was using such a migration on parts in SchoolTool allready. This means non exsiting package/class instances where migrated to totaly new code directly in the ZODB. Regards Roger Ineichen > > Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3 > > develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it. > > I'm a Zope 3 developer. Martijn is too. Don't jump to > premature conclusions :). > > Philipp > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: [snip] And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. People building on Zope 3 will presumably mostly be working with a Zope 3 release, which will not include Zope 2. So, they cannot be confused by Zope 2 in that way. But if they're to become Zope 3 core developers they'll have to learn about this, yes. I'm more concerned about the acceptance of Zope3 outside the Zope community because Zope2 developers will have to move to Zope3 at a certain time. It's juste much more easier than for the first people. [snip] > I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. I don't think it is easy at all. While any competent Zope 2 developer will be able to learn about Zope 3, there's also the question of motivation and opportunity to do so. Only thanks to Five is the Plone community making any move to Zope 3 at all, for instance. There's a pretty huge barrier between Zope 2 and Zope 3 and only recently has it been slowly coming down in the minds of Zope 2 developers. While I don't doubt developers will be coming to Zope 3 from outside the Zope community, I also think that by far the biggest amount of developers will be coming from *within* the Zope community, and if we want to gain more developers for Zope 3, *that* is the best place to look. It's our community, let's take care of it. > The > challenge is people outside the Zope community and I'm more worried > about them. Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. There is a lot of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing particularly well in this competition, something we need to fix, but that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing we can do at present to grow the Zope 3 community. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: UI improvements
Tino Wildenhain wrote: Here is the list w/ "improvements" ante portas: 1) Icons for add-dropdown list +1 2) History + History compare for all objects and more useable diff +10 ...but how does this work when the objects can't sensible show history or be compared? 3) warning when commiting stale edit forms in ZPT, python script (expect hight discussion here ;) -0 cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: UI improvements
Alexander Limi wrote: I can assure you that I have no good intentions whatsoever, just a desire to see the "I clicked the Clear Catalog button, now what do I do" questions on plone-users decrease. I thought that was how you got a Plone upgrade to work in less than a day ;-) (...and then Find stuff back into the catalog afterwards...) Pure annoyance-driven development. ;) Indeed, but my comment wasn't so much about this particular change, it was about the principle of it. If 2.9 is already feature-frozen, then we're setting a dangerous precedent for allowing feature changes on it. "well, if he did it, why can't I? My changes are just as small" etc... There's also something to be said for keeping the UI as consistent as possible once a branch is feature frozen, no matter how bad it is. How do others feel about this? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the sourcecoderepository
Hi Philipp > Roger Ineichen wrote: > > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest > > > clue of how zope.wfmc works. > > > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I > > > refactor something, I might even > > > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be > > > very superficial. > > > > That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad > > docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional > > tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc. > > So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard. > What's your point? That keeping > Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a > different quality of hardness? > I don't think so. > > > I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a > > hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework. > > Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me... If I do a refactoring on existing Zope3 code I proable have to support backward compatibility on other z3 packages for a clean commit where all unit test will pass. If we merge the Zope2 code into one trunk, we have to take care on this unit tests as well. Or we will see broken unit tests in the future. > > > And if > > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me > on a branch. > > > > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope > > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. > > It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot > together on geddons. Just > recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things > related to zpkgutils. Let's > not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are. So future development will become pure XP programming. On Zope3 developer and one Zope2 developer for each commit ;-) > > Btw, what's next. > > Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core > > only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise. > > You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to > go into this point further. > My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less. I think you are proposing to mix two totaly different framework into one big trunk and the benefit will be in getting "Products" back from Zope2 developers. We are not in that state right now. We have a lot to do before we can take car on "Products". I thnink we have to do several refactorings before we can do such a joint venture. > > Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five, > > I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the > > idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3 > > core development. > > I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few > risks, as I've laid them out > in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities. > > > Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there > is another > > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will > > contribute more. > > I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first > serious attempt, ignoring the > two books out there *wink*. > > > I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that > > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the > Zope3 development. > > Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people > with strong Zope 2 background > -- have given me the opposite impression. > > > Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get > into Zope3 > > only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. > > Yes. > > > You draw the picture a little bit to easy. > > Perhaps. > > > I think if somebody will become a Zope3 > > developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. > And not only > > download the code. > > Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the > kinda guy I want to address. He > has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with > Zope 2 and he sees several > points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these > points been at the tip of his > fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3? No, we really need developer like Chris. But the organization of a development trunk has nothing to do with that. Regards Roger Ineichen > Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter... > > Philipp > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: > Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never > contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a > proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer > to decide. Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community! Really, I'm quite tired of trench wars like Zope 2 vs. Zope 3. Like Martijn said, we need to come together, not apart. I'm starting to get the feeling that some Zope 3 developers rather see Zope 2 die than embrace some of its experience and community. May I remember everyone again that we once said we'd do something about the transition (we even boldly called it "backward compatability" back then, but even I thought that this was quite too unrealistic). So far, nobody from Zope 3 has done anything in that direction, it's always been left to the Zope 2 people. Don't take me wrong, I'm not accusing, it naturally developed that way. But now that Zope 2 people want to join efforts, the Zope 3 developers close the gates under the excuse of saving their "early adoption" investment? > Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3 > develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it. I'm a Zope 3 developer. Martijn is too. Don't jump to premature conclusions :). Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Chris McDonough wrote: > I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no > matter what happens. Chris, I won't bother you with a detailed answer (esp. to some points that were not quite correct about Zope 3 not caring about backward compat). I just wanted to say that I also really, really appreciate your taking time to write this post. You're exactly the kinda guy my proposal is addressing: Lots of Zope 2 experience on dead serious sites, lots of ideas on how to improve certain things in Zope 3, but no or little opportunity so far to get your hands dirty. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest > > clue of how zope.wfmc works. > > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I > > refactor something, I might even > > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be > > very superficial. > > That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad > docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional > tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc. So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard. What's your point? That keeping Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a different quality of hardness? I don't think so. > I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a > hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework. Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me... > > And if > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. > > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot together on geddons. Just recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things related to zpkgutils. Let's not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are. > Btw, what's next. > Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core > only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise. You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to go into this point further. My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less. > Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five, > I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the > idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3 > core development. I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few risks, as I've laid them out in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities. > Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will > contribute more. I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first serious attempt, ignoring the two books out there *wink*. > I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development. Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people with strong Zope 2 background -- have given me the opposite impression. > Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3 > only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. Yes. > You draw the picture a little bit to easy. Perhaps. > I think if somebody will become a Zope3 > developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only > download the code. Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the kinda guy I want to address. He has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with Zope 2 and he sees several points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these points been at the tip of his fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3? Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Zope3 developers [...] > On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by > yourself. Being > > stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they > large or small, > > isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far > backing up this > > proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. > > I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing > it. Right now there > are more -1 votes than +1 votes. Maybe it is time retract the > proposal? > Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from > people using > Five. We are not even getting bug reports. Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer to decide. Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3 develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it. Regards Roger Ineichen > Regards, > Stephan > -- > Stephan Richter > CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) > Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Philipp [...] > Stephan Richter wrote: > > I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn > Zope 2 and Five. > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest > clue of how zope.wfmc works. > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I > refactor something, I might even > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be > very superficial. That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc. I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework. > And if > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. Btw, what's next. Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise. Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five, I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3 core development. Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will contribute more. I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development. Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3 only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. You draw the picture a little bit to easy. I think if somebody will become a Zope3 developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only download the code. Regards Roger Ineichen > It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling > reason why it should change. > > Philipp > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
