- Original Message -
From: Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope and zope
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
bit ugly.
Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
to avoid the conflict?
-1 to renaming 'Zope'; the amount of third-party
Chris McDonough wrote:
Note that the reason I suggested renaming Zope to zope2 (or whatever) as
opposed to zope to zope3 is because Zope 3 uses absolute imports almost
everywhere; it would be far less work to change Zope to Zope2 because
Zope 2 either uses relative imports or assumes it can find
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 11:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
What about z.app.foo or z.i18n?
The shortness of this example is very attractive, but it is still a compromise
in my opinion.
Again, I think educating is easier than anything else. People understand that
this is
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 11:18, Stephan Richter wrote:
Because in general I don't like version numbers in the path. I also think that
zope is the only name that is 100% right on. Everything else is a
compromise I would try to avoid. We will be sorry about it later, when many
more people run
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 11:36, Jim Fulton wrote:
Again, I think educating is easier than anything else. People understand
that this is due to a merge of codebases and is for a transition period
only. And, the TTW scripter will not care.
But this is a really important transition. It's a
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 11:44, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 11:18, Stephan Richter wrote:
Because in general I don't like version numbers in the path. I also think
that zope is the only name that is 100% right on. Everything else is a
compromise I would try to avoid. We will
On 04/14/04 12:27, yuppie wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
But I think that this is a big problem. Backward compatibility for Z2
*is*
important. It's too bad that lots of test files have to import Zope.
Sigh.
Why is that a *big* problem?
- It's not nice to break tests, but that doesn't necessarily
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
bit ugly.
Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
to avoid the conflict?
-1 to renaming 'Zope'; the amount of third-party code which we
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
bit ugly.
Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
to avoid the conflict?
-1 to renaming 'Zope'; the amount of third-party
Jim Fulton noted:
Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
bit ugly.
Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
to avoid the conflict?
A bit ugly, but I can live with it.
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1 to renaming
Fred Drake wrote:
Jim Fulton noted:
Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
bit ugly.
Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
to avoid the conflict?
A bit ugly, but I can live with it.
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1
12 matches
Mail list logo
