On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
>
> >> That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
> >
> > Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
>
> The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory,
On 4/11/09 7:32 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
>> That much dependency cleanup would be fantastic.
>
> Yes, cool, but what exactly whould you like to cleanup?
The bits that I use are already pretty nicely cleaned up. But in theory, if we
did a more reasonable job of dependency management, I'd be abl
Hi
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] naming Zope
>
> On 4/11/09 4:39 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> > Chris McDonough wrote:
> >> On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> >>> "Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok,
> repoze.cfg, and
> >&
On 4/11/09 4:39 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>>> "Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
>>> something else"
>> repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as "Zope
>> Toolkit" is
Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>> "Zope 4 is built using Zope Toolkit 1.0, as is Grok, repoze.cfg, and
>> something else"
>
> repoze.bfg is actually *not* build with the Zope Toolkit at least as "Zope
> Toolkit" is defined by the Steering Group. It uses only zo
On 4/11/09 9:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
>> changes to
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
> changes to warrant a new major version bump.
I could cer
Andreas Jung wrote:
> There is not much to be added to the posting of Martin Aspelli. If you
> want to rename Zope 2 then name it "Zope 2 application server" or "Zope
> Application Server" in order to make its functionality more clear.
> A name like "Zope Classic" is pretty pointless and informatio
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
>> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
>> that?
>
> - -100
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Friday 10 April 2009, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>>> think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
>>> developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead.
>> I will continue to speak of Zope 2 (not Zope Classic).
>
> +1. I think we gain nothing by renamin
On Friday 10 April 2009, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> >think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
> >developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead.
>
> I will continue to speak of Zope 2 (not Zope Classic).
+1. I think we gain nothing by renaming Zope 2 to anything else. I a
Hey,
Chris McDonough wrote:
> All done except for the renaming of the steering group.
Yay! Thanks Chris.
> I'm not sure where to rename that.
It got renamed automatically when you renamed Framework to Toolkit.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev mailli
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:23, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> I will continue to speak of Zope 2 (not Zope Classic).
Right. The classic/legacy renaming is only necessary if we were to
move to Zope 4, which we aren't, or continue to talk about Zope 3,
which we aren't.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, P
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2009-4-9 10:40 +0200:
>Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> > WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
>> > collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
>> > actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in t
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-4-8 15:31 +0200:
> ...
>In order to make Zope 2 and Zope 3 fit the pattern, it'd be nice if they
>had names that fit the "Zope is a project, not software" pattern. We
>could rename Zope 2 to Zope Classic, as was suggested. I think we should
>also rename Zope 3 to so
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:36, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Grr. Way to end a bikeshed discussion. Now what are we going to drone
> on about?
Wait, wait, it should be called Zope Platform!
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 4/9/09 4:25 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If nobody volunteers to do this (feel free to organize more volunteers),
>> we'll stick with Zope Framework.
>>
>> Let me know if you're going to do this and when you're done.
>
> All done except for the renaming of the steering
On 4/9/09 4:25 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
>
> Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
> Zope Framework to Zope Toolkit if:
>
> * someone goes and changes the name in:
>
> * the Zope Framework sp
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 23:07, Chris Rossi wrote:
> I can't believe no one's suggested Zope Mega, yet.
It sounds stupid.
The Zope Ultra Component Framework Toolkit, though, THAT's a name with panache!
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661 58 14 64
_
I can't believe no one's suggested Zope Mega, yet.
Chris
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
>
> Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
> Zope Framework to Zope Toolkit if:
>
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> If nobody volunteers to do this (feel free to organize more volunteers),
> we'll stick with Zope Framework.
>
> Let me know if you're going to do this and when you're done.
FWIW, I think this particular pile of libraries is in fact best
described by the name "framework"
Hey,
Joy, another naming discussion. Oh well, I started it. :)
Zope Toolkit is better name than Zope Framework. I'm fine with renaming
Zope Framework to Zope Toolkit if:
* someone goes and changes the name in:
* the Zope Framework sphinx documentation in SVN
* renames the SVN directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>>
To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next
>>> Zope 2
>>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that
Zope2
Just my 0.02 cents :)
Regards
Roman Lacko
> -Original Message-
> From: zope-dev-boun...@zope.org [mailto:zope-dev-boun...@zope.org] On Behalf
> Of Lennart Regebro
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: Martin Aspeli
> Cc: zope-dev@zope.org
> Subject: Re:
Zope Toolkit is a good name. But so is Zope Framework. And honestly,
it's more a framework than a toolkit. A toolkit is a collection of
reasonably independent tools. OK, so Zope Framework is actually loads
of frameworks, one for components, one for security one for web forms,
and this and that. But
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>>> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
>>> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
>>> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software enginee
Previously Shane Hathaway wrote:
>
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> > WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
> > collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
> > actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
> > sense, along with s
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> > release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> > done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
> > changes to w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
>> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
>> realistic chance of renaming it.
>>
>> We
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope. There are enough
> changes to warrant a new major version bump.
-100 again
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
> realistic chance of renaming it.
>
> We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
>
> Zope 2, Zope 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Hathaway wrote:
>
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
>> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
>> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software en
Tres Seaver wrote:
> WRT the "Framework" name: "framework" is a misleading name for the
> collection of packages salvaged from the "new Coke" effort: it is
> actually a *bunch* of frameworks, in the classic software engineering
> sense, along with some "pure" libraries.
Zope Toolkit, perhaps?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
> thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
> discussion worth having.
>
> Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gav
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
> The parts that make it
> up, even the ZMI, are useful to people and should live on in the Zope
> Framework.
The ZMI is definitely not going to live in the Zope Framework. An
important point of the Zope Framework is to have to worry about less code.
If people want to
On Apr 8, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> [snip]
>>> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
>>> there any potential for this?
>>
>> I think we should call the Zope 3 application "ZDec
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
>> there any potential for this?
>
> I think we should call the Zope 3 application "ZDecoy". The rest of
> Zope 3, the parts everyone uses, is c
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 18:47, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Could we just call it Zope Libraries? Whenever I see a description of what
> the
> Zope Framework is, it says "a collection of libraries", so why not just call
> it
> that?
Well, that's a bad description, it's more than just libraries, the
Benji York wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
> been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have
> no
> realistic chance of renaming it.
>
> We are still stuck with the following perceive
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>
> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
>
Baiju M wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the peo
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 17:40, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3.
Assuming Zope 3 The Application Server is still going to exist, I
think it should be renamed (I suggested Blue Bream). But I have so far
seen no indication that anybody wants it,
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
>> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
>> done to clean up the co
I see no reason at all to rename anything.
remeber the days when there was dBase3. and then dBase4 came allong.
technically better but never took off ?
To the day things are either dBase or dBase3 compatible.
A simmilar situation we have with Zope.
Like dBase, Zope is a base technology. How its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 18:09 Uhr, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> To stir things up: I would like to suggest renumbering the next Zope 2
> release to Zope 4. That reflects the large refactoring that is being
> done to clean up the codebase and fully eggify Zope.
Previously Jim Fulton wrote:
> 3. I think the word "Zope" should refer to both the application
> currently called Zope 2 and the Zope ecosystem, depending on context,
> although I'm also fine with coming up with another name as long as it
> doesn't imply obsolescence. :)
I am somehow reminde
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is there
> any potential for this?
I doubt many see Zope 3 as a finished product - I get the impression
everyone is using it as a grab bag if tools to build their own
applications. It certainly has
On 8 Apr 2009, at 16:40, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> How to get out of that bind? We could consider renaming Zope 3. Is
> there
> any potential for this?
A thought that occurs to me is we could not rename Zope 2 or Zope 3
but abbreviate Zope 3 to z3 as much as possible. I'm not sure if
that'
- 1 for Zope Classic for the same reasons as Martin brought up.
juh
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listin
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
>> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
>
> +1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
>
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> If we don't call Zope Framework "4.0", we'll be fine. We should call its
> first release 1.0 and there's no implication of a progression.
+1 on calling it Zope Framework 1.0. We need the people who have been
burned by past Zope releases to take another look, because we
Thanks for posting this. (Thank you too Chris for starting the Zope 4
thread.) Despite the inevitable bike shedding, I think this is a
discussion worth having.
Here are my opinions, which build on the arguments you gave, even
though I disagree with some of your conclusions.
1. I hate "Zop
Hey,
Okay, in the interests of making this discussion go quickly, there has
been enough negative feedback about renaming Zope 2 to think we have no
realistic chance of renaming it.
We are still stuck with the following perceived sequence:
Zope 2, Zope 3
which implies that people should want t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 16:47 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
>> and will only lead to confusion.
>
> What particular problem is not solved? We may not be
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
> Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything does not solve any particular problem
> and will only lead to confusion.
What particular problem is not solved? We may not be talking about the
same problem?
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
> that?
-100
"Zope 2" is an incredibly established name. It's been around forever.
Renaming something that has been out t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08.04.2009 15:31 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> Let's talk about Zope Classic and see whether renaming Zope 2 to that is
> a step we can realistically take in the near future. Who is in favor of
> that?
- -100
Renaming Zope 2 to Zope anything
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
>> developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
>> needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
>> but Zope Cla
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think renaming Zope 2 to Zope Classic will be easy. If the Zope 2
> developers are okay with this, let's go right ahead. Not much discussion
> needed. Zope 2.11 becomes Zope Classic 11. It's a huge version number,
> but Zope Classic is over a decade old anyw
63 matches
Mail list logo
