Martijn Faassen wrote: >> In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2 >> should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you >> all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with >> 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously which. 1.3 is >> already taken so we need some sort of suffix (a letter perhaps). >> Suggestions are welcome :). > > > Ugh, soon we'll get Five 1.2-RC3-beta5-whatever. :)
Hehe. > Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is > actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this regard? Is > Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8? Yes. > Is CMF? CMF 1.6 is. I hope CMF 2.0 is not. > I heard some mumblings perhaps 2.9 should be targetted. But perhaps > Zope 2.8 is still solidly the target. Perhaps these use cases aren't > driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use > this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified? The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from outside Products (so that they will still receive the same initialization features and an entry in the Control_Panel, etc.). The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages. > For simplicity, both for the developers using Five as well as for the > developers building Five, it'd be much easier if we could simply all > agree new features go into Five 1.4 for Zope 2.9. Yes. I agree. I guess the only compelling reason to backport to Five 1.2 is to make people NOT upgrade to Zope 2.9 for this particular feature (product-less packages). Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0 release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. > Then again, I'm not absolutely against continuing the Five 1.2 line with > new features. Me neither. > How to name it is indeed tricky. Perhaps in favor of > comprehensibility we just want to name it 1.2.1, even though we add > new features. While we cheat and add new features to what should be a > pure bugfix release, potentially destabilizing it, I think it's > easier on everyone's mind not to introduce a new line of Five 1.2's > with features. Yes, on second thought I agree. > I also still hope that the pressure to add new features to Five 1.2 > will go away very quickly. Well, in five months we can retire Five 1.0 and 1.2 for good. I do not plan to maintain Five releases any longer than their corresponding Zope releases (others are welcome to do that, of course). Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests