-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:49:02PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
>> On Monday 08 October 2007 15:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Presuming agreement on the "known good set" (KGS) term, I would think
>>> that we have two candidates
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:49:02PM -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 08 October 2007 15:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
> > Presuming agreement on the "known good set" (KGS) term, I would think
> > that we have two candidates for what makes up "platform releases"
> >
> > Frozen Releases
> >
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 15:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
Presuming agreement on the "known good set" (KGS) term, I would think
that we have two candidates for what makes up "platform releases"
Frozen Releases
I started commenting this section until I saw the
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Frozen Releases
-
A frozen release would consist of:
- A single, "frozen" KGS (index pages cannot change after release).
[snip]
With Grok we're now using such a versions list with buildout, using the
buildout extends mechanism. This has two a
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
For me z3c.formdemo is a good example of a small Zope 3 application. It is
built on top of the Zope 3 Web application server. But in order to get it
working, I did not have to install anything special. I just use the
libraries.
Sure, when I use Grok I just
Hi Tres
> Cc: zope3-dev Development
> Betreff: [Zope3-dev] Re: Zope 3 releases?
[...]
> A frozen release would consist of:
>
> - A single, "frozen" KGS (index pages cannot change after release).
Can we use a flag on the server side e.g. in the index page, so
nobody i
On Monday 08 October 2007 15:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Presuming agreement on the "known good set" (KGS) term, I would think
> that we have two candidates for what makes up "platform releases"
>
> Frozen Releases
>
I started commenting this section until I saw the one below. I pers
On Monday 08 October 2007 11:06, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Stephan, I tried to reply to your points but I realized I was getting
> lost in a sea of semantics and that it wasn't useful.
I agree
> I'd like to see a separation between what you consider to be not only
> closely allied but *identical*:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> - We need to decide what a Zope 3 release is (or maybe multiple
>>> flavors). I favor copying the linux experiences, but
Hey,
Stephan, I tried to reply to your points but I realized I was getting
lost in a sea of semantics and that it wasn't useful.
> > The Zope 3 web application server is not primarily what the Zope 3
> > project appears to be developing. I strongly suspect there are more
> > users of Zope 3 techn
On Monday 08 October 2007 06:56, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Because we have endless confusion between Zope 3 the ecosystem and Zope
> 3 the web application framework.
For me it is exactly the same. Zope 3 is a Web application server. Zope 2 uses
many components of the Zope 3 Web application server.
I'm not sure that "library" or "collection of libraries" is the right
term for what we want to be. I think we've been using it because it
stands in sharp contrast to "application", which, BTW, isn't exactly
what Zope 2 is. I think these terms were useful to make some points,
but neither
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007 17:13, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm not saying an ecosystem approach is bad, if that's what Zope 3 wants
to be. I do think that such an approach needs to be supplemented by a
framework approach (and I've been putting work into one way to do that).
On 10/7/07, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I see Brandon making good points, I also agree with this: the
> motivation to contribute to the Python standard library is reduced
> because of big bang releases. I think the main reason is that you need
> to wait so long to see your wo
On Sunday 07 October 2007 17:13, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I'm not saying an ecosystem approach is bad, if that's what Zope 3 wants
> to be. I do think that such an approach needs to be supplemented by a
> framework approach (and I've been putting work into one way to do that).
Why? I have no need
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 6:25 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
- We need a *realistic* (especially wrt available resources) process
for managing releases. There are 2 aspects of this. We shouldn't
make plans for which there aren't enough resources. We also
shouldn't plan signifi
Jim Fulton wrote:
IMO, the Python standard library and "batteries included" is a mess.
Despite being a Python contributor, I've very unmotivated to be a
contributor because the time lag between contributing and deriving
benefit from the contributions is too long. People had similar
complaint
IMO, the Python standard library and "batteries included" is a mess.
Despite being a Python contributor, I've very unmotivated to be a
contributor because the time lag between contributing and deriving
benefit from the contributions is too long. People had similar
complaints about Zope re
On 10/7/07, Brandon Craig Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is danger here. Many in the industry consider Linux to be an
> absolute disaster - because after you develop an application on one
> distribution, you can spend months trying to support customers who
> attempt to run it on other d
Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - We need to decide what a Zope 3 release is (or maybe multiple
>> flavors). I favor copying the linux experiences, but have an open
>> mind.
>
> I like the Linux parallel as well. I think it would be nice, if we
> treat the Zope 3 name like Debian,
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip]
But I also see another point of view. Zope 3 as a product we
can lobby for and a application server which is ready to use
with a easy setup. e.g. windows installer or buildout,
easy install.
I think such a Zope 3 application server has the following
benefit.
-
21 matches
Mail list logo
