Hi,
Now when zope refactoring is in progress, would it be possible to refactor
zope.app.generations package so there would be for example package
zope.generations that would depend only on ZODB3 package ?
I'm using zope.app.generations to upgrade the DB schema in my web project, and
in future
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 05:34, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>
>>> The current line of thinking for Plone is about this: Plone 4 will still
>>> run on Zope2. Plone 5 will run on Python 3.x and not depend on Zope2
>>> anymore at all. We can all guesstimate
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 05:34, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>
>> The current line of thinking for Plone is about this: Plone 4 will still
>> run on Zope2. Plone 5 will run on Python 3.x and not depend on Zope2
>> anymore at all. We can all guesstimate on what kind of timeline tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
>> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
>> realistic chance of renaming it.
>>
>> We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> This is only mildly confusing. It can also only get better with time,
>> as Plone seems to continue away from Zope 2 and onto the framework,
>> which means we in the future may end up with Plone, G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
> changes to warrant a new major version bump.
-100 again
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
> realistic chance of renaming it.
>
> We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
>
> Zope 2, Zope 3
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> This is only mildly confusing. It can also only get better with time,
> as Plone seems to continue away from Zope 2 and onto the framework,
> which means we in the future may end up with Plone, Grok and BFG being
> app servers on the Zope Framework.
The current line of thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Hathaway wrote:
>
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
>> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
>> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software en
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21, Chris Withers wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:14, Chris Withers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> PyPI will work in exactly the same way as zope.org for non-eggified
>>> products: manual download.
>>>
>>> What I *would* worry about is non-egg distribu
Tres Seaver wrote:
> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
> sense, along with some "pure" libraries.
Zope Toolkit, perhaps?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
> thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
> discussion worth having.
>
> Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gav
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
> The parts that make it
> up, even the ZMI, are useful to people and should live on in the Zope
> Framework.
The ZMI is definitely not going to live in the Zope Framework. An
important point of the Zope Framework is to have to worry about less code.
If people want to
On Apr 8, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> [snip]
>>> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
>>> there any potential for this?
>>
>> I think we should call the Zope 3 application "ZDec
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
>> there any potential for this?
>
> I think we should call the Zope 3 application "ZDecoy". The rest of
> Zope 3, the parts everyone uses, is c
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 18:47, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Could we just call it Zope Libraries? Whenever I see a description of what
> the
> Zope Framework is, it says "a collection of libraries", so why not just call
> it
> that?
Well, that's a bad description, it's more than just libraries, the
Benji York wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have
> no
> realistic chance of renaming it.
>
> We are still stuck with the following perceive
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>
> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
>
Baiju M wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the peo
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 17:40, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3.
Assuming Zope 3 The Application Server is still going to exist, I
think it should be renamed (I suggested Blue Bream). But I have so far
seen no indication that anybody wants it,
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>> done to clean up the co
I see no reason at all to rename anything.
remeber the days when there was dBase3. and then dBase4 came allong.
technically better but never took off ?
To the day things are either dBase or dBase3 compatible.
A simmilar situation we have with Zope.
Like dBase, Zope is a base technology. How its
Hi there,
During the post-Pycon sprint Hanno made me aware of a tool called
mr.developer. This tool allows you to easily turn a particular package
in your buildout into one you want to hack on, without you having to
know where to check it out from.
mr.developer has a concept of "next" (Plone-n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope.
Previously Jim Fulton wrote:
> 3. I think the word "Zope" should refer to both the application
> currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context,
> although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it
> doesn't imply obsolescence. :)
I am somehow reminde
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there
> any potential for this?
I doubt many see Zope 3 as a finished product - I get the impression
everyone is using it as a grab bag if tools to build their own
applications. It certainly has
On 8 Apr 2009, at 16:40, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
> there
> any potential for this?
A thought that occurs to me is we could not rename Zope 2 or Zope 3
but abbreviate Zope 3 to z3 as much as possible. I'm not sure if
that'
- 1 for Zope Classic for the same reasons as Martin brought up.
juh
___
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/listin
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>
> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
>
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
discussion worth having.
Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even
though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
1. I hate "Zop
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
Zope 2, Zope 3
which implies that people should want t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 16:47 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
>> and will only lead to confusion.
>
> What particular problem is not solved? We may not be
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
> Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
> and will only lead to confusion.
What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking about the
same problem?
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
> that?
-100
"Zope 2" is an incredibly established name. It's been around forever.
Renaming something that has been out t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
> that?
- -100
Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> Gary Poster wrote:
>>> Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal,
>>> I think we'd be fine with "Zope Framework," and "Zope 2." We certainly
>>> don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant.
>> Zope Frame
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
>> developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
>> needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
>> but Zope Cla
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
> developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
> needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
> but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyw
Hi there,
There was some discussion recently on how to name Zope in the future.
Here are my thoughts and suggestions.
First of all some principles I tend to follow surrounding names.
* I prefer not introducing too many new names at the same time. A
renaming takes a while to percolate through t
Chris Withers wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal,
>> I think we'd be fine with "Zope Framework," and "Zope 2." We certainly
>> don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant.
>
> Zope Framework (and maybe even ZF4) see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Withers wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously Chris Withers wrote:
>>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> KGS the
>>> concept is very easy to implement; you just make available on some URL
>>> a
>>> buildout versions.cfg, or you r
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Apr 7 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Apr 8 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (errors=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.1 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue Apr 7 20:58:56
Previously Chris Withers wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > What we do is: collect the tarballs, serve the resulting directory. I
> > have not seen a need to run a script.
>
> How do you collect the tarballs?
buildout download cache
> How do you serve the resulting directory?
standard apache
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris Withers wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> KGS the
>> concept is very easy to implement; you just make available on some URL a
>> buildout versions.cfg, or you run your own package index.
> OK, the former I can see happening on an end-user p
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:14, Chris Withers wrote:
>> PyPI will work in exactly the same way as zope.org for non-eggified
>> products: manual download.
>>
>> What I *would* worry about is non-egg distributions on PyPI causing
>> problems for setuptools and its ilk...
>
>
48 matches
Mail list logo
