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?


> - C
> _______________________________________________
> Repoze-dev mailing list
> Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
> http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to