Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Do you agree that we put the documentation in the top-level directory? I.e. INSTALL.txt, README.txt etc. They shouldn't really go *inside* the package I hear from Ian. Would also give us less duplication between the plone_app and the plone_core (should we rename?) templates.

I think that for distribution (project) names we should use names like "PloneExample", rather than "plone.example".

We can put the docs at the top level. I just put them inside the package as we always did it this way, but after thinking about it, this was only because we had no other choice ;)


The name plone_core is misleading now indeed. We could rename it to either just plone or plone_base. I think plone_app is fine.

+1 for just plone

For distribution names I'm against using upper- or CamelCase names. While it is not technically a Python module, it is of a folderish nature and thus should use all lowercase names.

Besides using these lowercase names is already practiced by the Zope people in general. Look at http://svn.zope.org for things like 'zope.interface', 'zc.recipe.filestorage', ...

I fear having a different naming convention for distributions would confuse people more than it would help.

The problem here is that Zope 3 is not following the convention... I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for us to do the same.


Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to