On May 12, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Chris McDonough wrote: > 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?
ymmv.zope2 > > - C > _______________________________________________ > Repoze-dev mailing list > Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org > http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
