Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
Right. Here's what we could do:
1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their
status quo (status
Hi!
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the fact
that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things in
sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and should
work with
yuppie wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the fact
that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things in
sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the
fact that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things
in sync
Tres Seaver wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the
fact that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things
in sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and
should
