-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Raphael Ritz wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I seem to remember the plan was to target Plone 4 for CMF 2.2 and Zope
>> 2.11, but as you can see below that does not appear to be possible.
> So that means Zope 2.12 instead, right?
> Do we have an estimate of what that implies on our side?
> Generally speaking, I'm a bit uncomfortable with jumping
> from Zope 2.10.x to 2.12.x as this will reduce the chances
> of reacting to deprecation warnings which is of particular
> importance for all our add-on developers. I'm afraid we'll
> see lots of broken add-ons without prior warnings.
> If there is nothing we can do about this (and it seems so)
> we could still consider to have Plone 3.x move to Zope 2.11
> with 3.4 or 3.5.
> Just thinking out loud (and without knowing myself how much
> differences there are between Zope 2.10 and 12 that do affect
> us) ...
An outsider's take: I would strongly urge that a release-by-year-end
Plone4 use Zope 2.12. There is no compelling technical reason to hold
off, and plenty of time to test and iron out any issues. Staying
up-to-date gets you a migration path to a Python version (2.6) which
will be supported for a reasonable time frame (2.4 is effectively out of
support now; 2.5 is at the end of its support life). It will also
allow Plone to use the fully eggified Zope, and rip out lots of
workarounds ("fake eggs", anyone).
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Framework-Team mailing list