Christian Theune wrote:
So, unfortunately, "Zope 3.1 CC" or "Certified Zope 3.1.1"" might become
reality. Eventually it also will only be "Zope 3.1.5 (certified)".
Problem is: I have to state an (estimated) identifier within the
certification documents to identify the target that we're certifying
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
"It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and
Zope 3 as smooth a
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
"It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope
3 as smooth as possible. As a first step,
On Friday 22 April 2005 11:37, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > "It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
> > use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
> > also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3
> > as smooth as possible.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
"It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3
as smooth as possible. As a first step, Zope 2.8 includes
On Friday 22 April 2005 03:33, Christian Theune wrote:
> So, unfortunately, "Zope 3.1 CC" or "Certified Zope 3.1.1"" might become
> reality. Eventually it also will only be "Zope 3.1.5 (certified)".
> Problem is: I have to state an (estimated) identifier within the
> certification documents to iden
Hi,
* Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050420 17:37]:
>
> I was hoping to stay out of this discussion, but ...
>
> 1. There will be many more releases of Zope 2, including
> 2-digit releases like 2.10, 2.11, etc.
>
> 2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
> Zope 2 tr
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
This is what settled in our mind as the plan. It may be where Stephan
got this idea. It is still interfering with the message coming from Zope
Corporation that it appears did undergo some shifts over time.
Whoah, that last sentence makes no sense, I mean something li
> "It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production
> use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will
> also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3
> as smooth as possible. As a first step, Zope 2.8 includes Zope 3
> features in
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip]
[snip]
> I've always said that we will provide support for
transitioning to Zope 3, being careful to say "transition support"
rather than backward compatibility.
And that's not what the Zope X3 release notes strongly imply, which is
again, my point. T
On 4/20/05, Jake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, that sounds like a nightmare.
>
> So we might have X3.1, 3.0 being released at the same time? Talk about
> confusing to the outside world.
Yeah, It's better to call it 3.1 and 2.10 in that case.
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.c
On the naming, I agree with dropping the 3.
The risk with dropping the X is that we might make people think there
is now Zope2 backwards compatibility.
But there is a risk with NOT dropping it as well. And that is that we
don't know how the Zope2 compatibility will look or work, and some
even su
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Jim,
I'm not pointing out inconsistencies in our message and expectations set
for no reason; I think it's important to fix this aspect of our
marketing. Please read the comments here in this light; I want to
demonstrate how confused our message seems to be.
Jim Fulto
On 4/20/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > It just depends on how you count feature releases; for marketing reasons
> > you might want to call a significant feature advance Zope 4. If Zope 4
> > means a total rewrite from scratch, then please noh.
>
> Fair e
Hey Jim,
I'm not pointing out inconsistencies in our message and expectations set
for no reason; I think it's important to fix this aspect of our
marketing. Please read the comments here in this light; I want to
demonstrate how confused our message seems to be.
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faasse
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
Zope 2 transition. It's about setting expectations.
But we're setting the expectation that one day there will be a version
of Zope 3 that supports Zope 2.
No. We are setting the expecta
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
Zope 2 transition. It's about setting expectations.
But we're setting the expectation that one day there will be a version
of Zope 3 that supports Zope 2. Is this a realistic expectation? Stephan
doesn't seem
Hey,
I think the most sane would be:
Zope 2.8 -> Zope 2.9 -> Zope 2.x, for however many iterations it's
necessary. Zope 2 will grow some Zope 3 forward compatibility with Five,
but this depends on Five contributors. Right now, we're doing fairly
well and we hope this keeps up.
Zope X3.0 -> Zope
I was hoping to stay out of this discussion, but ...
1. There will be many more releases of Zope 2, including
2-digit releases like 2.10, 2.11, etc.
2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for
Zope 2 transition. It's about setting expectations.
I'm OK with dropping the X i
Ok...
So let me get this right.
2.7.x -> 2.8.x -> 2.9.x -> 2.10.x -> 2.11.x ?
I am sorry, but that is really confusing, but not as confusing throwing in
X3.0 and 3.0 and maybe 4.0 (way too early in my opinion).
I mean, I am just a simple guy, building simple sites with Zope, but all
of that jus
Stephan Richter wrote:
Something you and Chris do not address is how to call the version of Zope 3
that will not have Zope 2 support.
I believe this is called Zope 2.x + Five ;-)
Seriously, I don't personally believe anything more than Five is needed,
and therefore will emerge, to get "Zope 2 su
Jake wrote:
IIRC, it was supposed to go:
I don't know where you would have gotten this recollection.
2.7 -> 2.8 -> 2.9 -> 3.0 (merge)
No, there will certainly be 2.10, 2.11, etc.
X3.0 -> X3.1 -> 3.0 (merge)
No. I have no intention of restarting the numbering when we add
transition support.
And tha
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:39, Chris Withers wrote:
> That's NOT what I said ;-)
>
> Drop the X, period.
>
> Zope 2.x support in "3" will be via Five.
>
> When all that stuff is gone, call it Zope 4.
This sounds like a good option to me as well, though people will complain
about it. :-)
Regar
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:36, Jake wrote:
> I agree.
>
> Drop the X when X3 has 2X support in it.
Something you and Chris do not address is how to call the version of Zope 3
that will not have Zope 2 support. I, for one, and probably many others still
want to have *pure* Zope 3 releases with
Jake wrote:
I agree.
Drop the X when X3 has 2X support in it.
That's NOT what I said ;-)
Drop the X, period.
Zope 2.x support in "3" will be via Five.
When all that stuff is gone, call it Zope 4.
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simp
I agree.
Drop the X when X3 has 2X support in it.
Jake
--
http://www.ZopeZone.com
Chris Withers said:
> Jake wrote:
>
>> Well, that sounds like a nightmare.
>>
>> So we might have X3.1, 3.0 being released at the same time? Talk about
>> confusing to the outside world.
>
> I think it should jus
Jake wrote:
Well, that sounds like a nightmare.
So we might have X3.1, 3.0 being released at the same time? Talk about
confusing to the outside world.
I think it should just be called 3.1, and silently drop the X from all
past and future releases. It doesn't seem to have had any real meaning
anyw
Well, that sounds like a nightmare.
So we might have X3.1, 3.0 being released at the same time? Talk about
confusing to the outside world.
This needs some rethinking.
Jake
--
http://www.ZopeZone.com
Stephan Richter said:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:07, Jake wrote:
>> 2.7 -> 2.8 -> 2.9 ->
Stephan Richter wrote:
My suspicion is that the Zope 2 code base will eventually become the Zope 3
code base as all Zope X3 pieces get merged into it via Five. Once we
completely fade out the Zope 2 code, we can call it Zope 4.
+1 from me...
So lets just call it Zope 3 for now...
Chris
--
Simplis
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:07, Jake wrote:
> 2.7 -> 2.8 -> 2.9 -> 3.0 (merge)
I think this will probably still happen.
> X3.0 -> X3.1 -> 3.0 (merge)
I do not think this will happen. In fact, I am getting a strange feeling that
we will have both, 3.x and X3.x, around for a long time, since so
IIRC, it was supposed to go:
2.7 -> 2.8 -> 2.9 -> 3.0 (merge)
X3.0 -> X3.1 -> 3.0 (merge)
And that was the whole point of putting X in front of the 3, so you would
know it was not really Zope 3.0, but X3.
Jake
--
http://www.ZopeZone.com
Stephan Richter said:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:1
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:18, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only non-standard part left in the release name if we drop the
> > double 3 is the X. The X is a bit of a bother and will get us into
> > trouble anyway eventually if a Zope 3 proper is
Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only non-standard part left in the release name if we drop the
> double 3 is the X. The X is a bit of a bother and will get us into
> trouble anyway eventually if a Zope 3 proper is ever released, as I
> can't see how we'd avoid situations where
Hi there,
This was previously hidden in a message on certification, so I'll
extract it here, since I think it's worth at least some discussion since
Zope X3.1 is coming up.
That's my first point; can we just please call it, tag it, branch it, as
Zope-X3.1, not ZopeX3-3.1(.0)?
Why do we need to
34 matches
Mail list logo
