On 4/20/09 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Stephan Richter wrote: >> On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote: >>> -1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a >>> dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer >>> believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard >>> for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial. >> I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of >> Zope 2. Other people pushed that message. > > That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. > One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need > to fix that situation.
I think Martijn's right on this point. FWIW, there was a mailing list setup to discuss this when it came up in Jan 2003: http://archives.free.net.ph/mindex/zope2-migrat...@20021201.050000.00000000.en.html Here's a useful thread showing a dialog between Seb Bacon, Jim, and me: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20030214.073424.f58e0929.en.html We have arrived at a different result, of course, but it is still useful to agree on the background. We also had the discussion when the decision was made to drop the X in Zope 3X, without fulfilling one part of the bullet points for why there was an X. Stephan, I agree that you didn't communicate that message. But I think it is pretty easy to show that Zope communicated that message, officially and unofficially. --Paul _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
