On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on
Zope 2.
A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2
shouldn't be merged in with Zope 3 ;-)
Actually, yes, all of my points were made to
Stephan Richter wrote:
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.
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2.
A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2 shouldn't be
merged in with Zope 3 ;-)
Put differently, if we're merging in Zope 2 into the repository, then
why not SchoolTool, or any of
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
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
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:
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
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
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
Indeed this is madness I think I like. :) This sounds like a sensible
step to make after the Zope 2.9/Zope 3.2 release.
On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/
ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record,
and speaking
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,
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I'm -1 on this as well.
Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and
On 24 Nov 2005, at 00:09, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 18:49, 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
Gary Poster wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/
ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record,
and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1.
Dominik Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephan Richter wrote:
This may raise the contribution bar too high.
IMO that 's the most important point.
It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2
developers
tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all
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
While I don't agree with the +1 voters, I understand and appreciate
their arguments. That said...
On Nov 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:14, Gary Poster wrote:
The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must
become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can
choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not.
Amen.
Regards,
Stephan
--
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope
2 developers tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all
leans towards the positive, even for Zope 3 developers (joint efforts,
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well.
Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the
moment...
I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just simply punishes all those
Julien Anguenot wrote:
And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ?
Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge.
Why? The 'zope' namespace package is what Zope 3 is known as to outsiders and
this will
not be affected.
I understand your
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It
says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section.
Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the trunk,
specifically from a
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
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It
says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section.
Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well.
Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the
moment...
I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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.
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope
2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related
anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year
Perhaps that would be a more suitable time to consider
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:57, Benji York wrote:
not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a
place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would
be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for
non-Zope-core software, it
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
--On 24. November 2005 07:09:00 +0100 Morten W. Petersen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not even getting bug reports.
Likely because Zope 3 *just-works* :-)
-aj
pgpXitw6jKDrm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
On 11/23/05, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using this group, we have about an 80-90%
-1 vote count.
I'll weigh in with a -1 as well, for all the reasons cited by the
other -1 voters on this issue. Zope 2 and Zope 3 are far too
different at this point. The only way I see for
Benji York wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope
2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related
anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year
Perhaps that would be a more
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 04:56 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to
move forward
beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's
great, but I
don't think everyone is in that fortunate
54 matches
Mail list logo
