Jim Fulton wrote:
I think a lack of a realistic vision means that we are pulling in
different directions. I think this is causing a lot of harm.
I think the crux of the issue here is that presently, we do not have a
consistent answer to the question "What is `Zope'?". I think what Jim is
atte
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
We'd have to declare the zope3-dev list for obsolete and make people
not
send messages to it. We'd just have to define a date and time. All
subsequent mail traffic would be handled by zope-d
Jim Fulton wrote:
In summary, I think we need *both* approaches, as they serve different
needs.
I'd have to agree... so +1
.. but I'd suggest that the application/plugin should have a way of
defining which ways it can (or prefers, if it can't be enforced) to be
included, so it is clear that P
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Zope is a feast with many kinds of food. When people come to the
feast, most are not willing to try everything at once, particularly
the entrees from the land of OODBMS. First let them have some
familiar foods. When they find out how finely prepared the food is,
they
Paul Winkler wrote:
"Mac OSX" in itself, on the other hand, was brilliant.
With one letter they managed to establish:
[...]
Right... but that is a brand, not a codename.
As I understand it, people are discussing things like "Tiger", and
"Panther", to follow your example.
rob
Stephan Richter wrote:
Okay, I am giving in on this. There is a three step process that will have to
be fullfilled to assign a codename to the Zope 3.3 release.
Surely codenames are only really useful or meaningful for software that
is going to be branded, but the marketing/branding teams
