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
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
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
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
I
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).
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 is
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.
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 technology
-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 have an
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*:
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 personally
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 is able to upload files if we use
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, and Grok
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
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
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
complaints
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
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
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 work in
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.
-
20 matches
Mail list logo
