On May 13, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> 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?
> +lots to calling this something other than 'repoze.zope2', which has
> always been about bending over backward to provide full BBB for  
> Zope2 apps.

repoze.plope has a nice ring to it ;^)

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to