* Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> [2011-02-02 17:31]:
>> which version is recommended for general consumption, what the plans for
>> finalizing 2.x are (and whether there's something the general public can
>> do to help).
> The reason we aren't in beta yet is that we may still discover a missing
> feature while implementing apps against it. Testing 2.0 in a wider
> range of apps is the biggest help you can provide.
>> Humm, I noticed that in Pyramid there is a RepozeWho1AuthenticationPolicy
>> -- is that a recommendation to stick with 1.x for now? ;-)
> Nope. The 2.0 version is actually quite stable. Because the auth
> policy for 1.0 didn't require any install_requires dependency on
> repoze.who, it shipped with pyramid. The equivalent version for 2.0
> *does* require repoze.who, and thus is factored into a separate pacakge:
Thanks for the pointer! I guess we'll give 2.0 a whirl, then.
Repoze-dev mailing list