On 5/12/09 12:00 PM, Malthe Borch wrote: > 2009/5/12 Chris McDonough<chr...@plope.com>: >> If we ever do release an 80%-compatible publisher replacement, we should >> call it >> something other than "repoze.zope2". > > I doubt if we're really talking 80% though; if as Hanno suggests, > it'll run CMF, Plone and what other popular Zope 2 apps/libraries, > isn't it more like 95%? In that case, I think the name can remain the > same.
Since those systems don't have any well-understood APIs themselves (at least historically), apps written on top of them do plenty of arbitrary things. Putting some 80% thing out there and telling folks "Plone and CMF run on it" without some "porting guide" is a recipe for endless maillist conversations with people not-in-the-know... "but now I get this KeyError in this app code I inherited four years ago... can you help me?" <shudder>. Breaking certain arbitrary things is fine, but maybe for such a thing to match the goals of the original "repoze.zope2", there has to be a widely-published list of each backwards incompatibility, showing "real world" symptom of a breakage and providing a workaround. Doing a good job at documenting breakage symptoms and workarounds is usually far more work than actually doing the coding to rip out some feature (I find it usually takes about 4X as long). If we can't afford this (and I sure can't personally), I'm not sure what we'd end up calling it. plone.dot.someting? zope.dot.something? - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repozefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev