[Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Hi there, Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included * Python 2.4 support I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Especially the Five work and Zope 3.1 work will mostly happen anyway, so integration should be relatively easy. I don't know much about how involved Python 2.4 support would be; perhaps people who know more can speak up. Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators I believe the work on this is fairly far along already. I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2 release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a version behind in the name of getting things out of the door to the developers. What do people think? Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Am 17.06.2005 um 11:45 schrieb Martijn Faassen: Hi there, Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included * Python 2.4 support +1 although 2.4 support is mainly a policy and auditing process, as some are apparently already running zope on python 2.4. How is this auditing performed? I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Especially the Five work and Zope 3.1 work will mostly happen anyway, so integration should be relatively easy. I don't know much about how involved Python 2.4 support would be; perhaps people who know more can speak up. Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators If I'm not mistaken, file iterators are already part of Zope2.8 or do you mean the interaction between blob storage and file iterators? Looking forward to it, __Janko ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
--On 17. Juni 2005 11:45:49 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included * Python 2.4 support I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Especially the Five work and Zope 3.1 work will mostly happen anyway, so integration should be relatively easy. I don't know much about how involved Python 2.4 support would be; perhaps people who know more can speak up. Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators I believe the work on this is fairly far along already. I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2 release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a version behind in the name of getting things out of the door to the developers. I think (or better hope) that the next 2.9 release won't be as painful as the 2.8 release since the planned feature and there are much more people that know about Five and Zope 3 than about ZODB/MVCC/ZClasses which caused the bottleneck in the 2.8 development. Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have 2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall (October)... we might also look what ZC has in their bags (based on Rob's ZF announcement). Andreas pgpFIsiNXCKxB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2 release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a version behind in the name of getting things out of the door to the developers. +10 on a less ambitious change set than what we had for 2.8... Concentration on consolidation and bug fixing in the massive 2.8 change set would be a very worthy goal for 2.9. jens ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people think? Just an idea: One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not have a traversing adapter. Stupid or brilliant? :) Even if it is brilliant, there is no particular reason that we can't wait for Zope 2.10, though. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. Philipp ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community. -aj pgp77OYFbuwJq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. Philipp Hi! I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor. Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ? regards /JM ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. Philipp Hi! I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor. I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a key player would make the Foundation more neural with respect to software vendors, as you say above. Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be employed somewhere... Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in this list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company driven, I wouldn't have a vote. except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ? Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your parliament? Little. But it counts. Philipp ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community. Yes. I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the same difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has done it already... Philipp ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Andreas Jung wrote: [snip] Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have 2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall (October)... I don't expect Zope 3.2 will be released by october. Jim is talking about a 6 month release schedule for Zope 3 last I heard, and 3.1 is not even out yet. I don't think we should hold up Zope 2.9 by waiting for Zope 3 versions, just like we haven't done so with Zope 2.8, which otherwise still would remain unreleased. Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:29:33 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community. Yes. I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the same difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has done it already... Maybe we should stop discusing these issues and wait until we hear some more solid information from ZC about their ZF plans. The ZF is a good idea but don't let us kill it in the beginning ... -aj pgpZ0WV3GRn1I.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Lennart Regebro wrote: On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do people think? Just an idea: One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not have a traversing adapter. Stupid or brilliant? :) I know Florent had some ideas of doing this integration too. It's an interesting idea. That said, I don't think we should add this to Zope 2.9, unless a developer gets really enthusiastic in the near future and takes responsibility for this. Even if it is brilliant, there is no particular reason that we can't wait for Zope 2.10, though. Exactly. Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: [snip] Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have 2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall (October)... I don't expect Zope 3.2 will be released by october. Jim is talking about a 6 month release schedule for Zope 3 last I heard, and 3.1 is not even out yet. I don't think we should hold up Zope 2.9 by waiting for Zope 3 versions, just like we haven't done so with Zope 2.8, which otherwise still would remain unreleased. I think the decision could be made short before the release. If 2.9 takes longer than expected and when you guys have Five 1.X for Zope 3.2 then we can include it or ship 2.8 with Five 1.1 and Zope 3.1...I assume that is not such a big task to exchange the Five and Zope 3 code in the Zope 2.9 core. -aj pgpPPATQjmpef.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: This is really great news! I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through. This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote. Philipp Hi! I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor. Hi! I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a key player would make the Foundation more neural with respect to software vendors, as you say above. I don't know but how do you make something less vendor oriented? That would require a definition, but essentially you'd bring in non-vendors (such as academic or non-profit organisations) to provide with some sort of balance, instead of hiding companies between individuals' names. How could it be done otherwise? The code that I'm writing during working hours is (c) Copyright Chalmers - it can't be otherwise, but it does not mean that I as a developer have less decision power than the company that I'm working for. Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be employed somewhere... Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in this list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company driven, I wouldn't have a vote. ah OK. I didn't see that list. However, most members do not write code during their free time, do they? What happens when the members write code under working hours, their respective employers must well have something to say about it? except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ? Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your parliament? Little. But it counts. Philipp I meant to say that the framework underneath (Zope, CMF) is such an essential component that the development of Plone cannot be dissociated from the development of CMF or Zope, which today happens to be managed outside the Plone foundation. But in the situation where ZC is involved in the foundation as one of the player, obviously the development of the framework and of core components managed by the members of the foundation is less concentrated on one single vendor since others partners have their word to say. This is a give-and-take situation. regards /JM ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ? Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other instituation ever influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute any more. I rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to choose what to do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers) than a vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development cycle. Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: However, most members do not write code during their free time, do they? What happens when the members write code under working hours, their respective employers must well have something to say about it? The PF actually did research on this and got legal help from Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center. Answer is: almost the same way as Apache does it and the FSF does it. The employer signs a contribution agreement *but* is not a voting member of the foundation. --Paul ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ? Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other instituation ever influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute any more. I rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to choose what to do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers) than a vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development cycle. In the case of the Plone Foundation, the PF is specifically excluded from the development process of the community. Its mandate is limited to organizational issues. Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.) Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc. Correct. The essential ingredient, and hardest one for the different cultures of different communities, is to establish the definition of merit. Is it only code? If so, how much and what kind? If not, what else is valuable? Most of the successful communities have a (subjective) definition of merit, used to evaluate membership. --Paul ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Martijn Faassen wrote: Hi there, Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what would be in Zope 2.9. Yup. I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2, we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases. We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months, starting this December. I suggest a manditory feature freeze at the beginning of the previous month, so November 1 for the next releases. I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included Actually, Zope 3.2. Zope 3.2 and 2.9 will be released together, There is no need for Zope 2 to be a release behind in it's Zope 3 components. * Python 2.4 support I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Yes. I think this is a good starting point. I hope there will be more, but, since we are doing time based release from now on, we'll have what we have. Especially the Five work and Zope 3.1 work will mostly happen anyway, so integration should be relatively easy. I don't know much about how involved Python 2.4 support would be; perhaps people who know more can speak up. The biggest issue with new Python versions is a security audit to make sure that new Python features don't create security holes. This is especially problementic for Zope 2's current security architecture, which relies on specialized Python compilers. I would *love* to change Zope 2 to use more of Zope 3's security architecture, although I don't know if I'll have time to do that. If someone wants to volunteer for some deep work, I think this would be extremely valuable. Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators I believe the work on this is fairly far along already. Yes, probably. I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2 release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a version behind in the name of getting things out of the door to the developers. What do people think? I think it is good to plan work, but, *we will not be bound by a specific set of features*. We are switching to time-based releases for Zope 2 and Zope 3. Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote: Paul Everitt wrote: Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.) Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to develop and promote great software. We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the SD houses customers). :^) IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as vendor-free. The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself to only individuals are members (of course, companies are represented by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a member company for another?). First, let's agree that this isn't pre-decided. That the community will get the governance model it wants. Agree? Second, can you find examples that support this? For example, here's what Apache says: http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions. Here's what GNOME Foundation says: http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/ Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while contributions made in the course of employment will be considered, they will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation. These are two very successful open source projects. However, there is nothing to suggest that our culture is the same as these others. What's most important is that the rules are defined by the community. Let's ensure that the bootstrapping group is representative. --Paul ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
Max M wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. Will they have the same relase date or will they be offset by a few months or something? They will have the same release date, same announcement, etc. Essentially, a single logical release, with a number of separate release files reflecting different platforms and configurations. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: [snip] Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have 2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall (October)... I don't expect Zope 3.2 will be released by october. Jim is talking about a 6 month release schedule for Zope 3 last I heard, and 3.1 is not even out yet. I don't think we should hold up Zope 2.9 by waiting for Zope 3 versions, just like we haven't done so with Zope 2.8, which otherwise still would remain unreleased. I think the decision could be made short before the release. If 2.9 takes longer than expected and when you guys have Five 1.X for Zope 3.2 then we can include it or ship 2.8 with Five 1.1 and Zope 3.1...I assume that is not such a big task to exchange the Five and Zope 3 code in the Zope 2.9 core. Yes, I agree we should make this decision before the release. Not shortly before the release, but some months before the date for which the release is planned. I want the Zope 2.9 release to be planned, so that issues like taking longer than expected will be less likely. So based on that and on the idea we want to do a Zope 2.9 release late this year, I just think it's unrealistic there'll be a Zope 3.2 release before then. Something may always drastically change though and we should be open to that. What I just want to avoid is having a situation where the Zope 2.9 release is *waiting* for a Zope 3.2 release. Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2, we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases. We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months, starting this December. I suggest a manditory feature freeze at the beginning of the previous month, so November 1 for the next releases. Great! I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included Actually, Zope 3.2. Zope 3.2 and 2.9 will be released together, There is no need for Zope 2 to be a release behind in it's Zope 3 components. If the time based release planning works for Zope 3, fine. I just want to avoid a situation where Zope 2.9 has to wait a long time for a Zope 3.2 release. I'd rather have a release out with Zope 3.1 before then. This may actually indicate we need a Zope 2.9 release in the nearer future which just focuses on including Zope 3.1, and planning for a Zope 2.10 release with 3.2 later. This would break time-releasedness for Zope 2.9, in that we could have it in, say, 3 months, though. I need to think this through. * Python 2.4 support I think these could all be accomplished without getting too ambitious. Yes. I think this is a good starting point. I hope there will be more, but, since we are doing time based release from now on, we'll have what we have. Agreed, having what we have, and releasing it, should be our motto. [snip] What do people think? I think it is good to plan work, but, *we will not be bound by a specific set of features*. We are switching to time-based releases for Zope 2 and Zope 3. Exactly. Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. I am worried about the interdependency of these releases causing delays, but I am also sure we can avoid this with good planning. Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
Jim Fulton wrote: Max M wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. Will they have the same relase date or will they be offset by a few months or something? They will have the same release date, same announcement, etc. Essentially, a single logical release, with a number of separate release files reflecting different platforms and configurations. This definitely gets me worried about coordinating everybody. We need very good planning to pull this off, something we haven't shown in previous Zope 2 or Zope 3 release processes. Perhaps a little ambitious? Regards, Martijn ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote: Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before 2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate for a 2.8-dot release because it's backwards compatible and optional. It ahould be done (needs a bit more testing and some minor implementation decisions) in the next few weeks, I suspect. Filestream iterators are already in 2.8 (they were added somewhere in 2.7). - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Has my message been rejected (from zope-dev) or not ? I'm confused. S. Stefane Fermigier wrote: Paul Everitt wrote: Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.) Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to develop and promote great software. We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the SD houses customers). IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as vendor-free. The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself to only individuals are members (of course, companies are represented by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a member company for another?). Anyway, the model I have in mind it the one of the Eclipse Foundation, but I haven't done that much research, and as I said before, I am very open to discussion. I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of things during the sprint next week. Regards, S. -- Stfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote: Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc. +1 if only because... From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues. I think the dues structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a member. I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford it. It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip] I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2, we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases. We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months, starting this December. I suggest a manditory feature freeze at the beginning of the previous month, so November 1 for the next releases. Great! I have some ideas: * newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then) * Zope 3.1 included Actually, Zope 3.2. Zope 3.2 and 2.9 will be released together, There is no need for Zope 2 to be a release behind in it's Zope 3 components. If the time based release planning works for Zope 3, fine. It will. I insist. :) I just want to avoid a situation where Zope 2.9 has to wait a long time for a Zope 3.2 release. I'd rather have a release out with Zope 3.1 before then. This may actually indicate we need a Zope 2.9 release in the nearer future which just focuses on including Zope 3.1, and planning for a Zope 2.10 release with 3.2 later. This would break time-releasedness for Zope 2.9, in that we could have it in, say, 3 months, though. I need to think this through. If people insist on this, I'll go along, but I'd really rather not do this. Let's start the 6-month schedule now and commit to time-based releases. If we do do a 2.9 release earlier just to get Zope 3.1, then I still want to stick to a december release for the next Zope zope release. Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. I am worried about the interdependency of these releases causing delays, but I am also sure we can avoid this with good planning. We have to. If, by some cance we screw this up in december, then we'll have to move the feature freeze date up relative to the final release. Let's try really hard to make this time-based release idea work. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Stefane Fermigier wrote: I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of things during the sprint next week. s/with/alongside/ Sorry for my poor english. Remember that some of us are not native english speakers and that sometimes communication is made harder for that reason. S. -- Stfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! begin:vcard fn:Stefane Fermigier n:Fermigier;Stefane org:Nuxeo adr:;;14, rue Soleillet;Paris;;75020;France email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+33 1 40 33 79 87 tel;fax:+33 1 43 58 14 15 tel;cell:+33 6 63 04 12 77 url:http://www.nuxeo.com/ version:2.1 end:vcard ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote: - the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable. I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This will hold up the release schedule. Is this a commonly-known thing? I mean, it's fine with me, but I just had no idea. If it's true, I will try to help enforce it when I see checkins that violate it. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope(ish) Windows services vs shutdown
I rewrote ZRS's Windows service code to use the new named events set by current versions of Zope's nt_svcutils/service.py. Overall, this works really slick, but with a glitch: the ZRS log files suggest that the signal events never get set when Windows is shutting down, they only fire when the user explicitly stops/restarts a ZRS service. That isn't good for ZRS -- it's managing a database, and really wants a chance to flush in-memory data structures to disk, no matter how the service gets stopped. I don't think it's a feature to skip clean shutdown for a Zope service either. So, best guesses (please scream where I'm wrong): - This is because service.py doesn't define a SvcShutdown method, just a SvcStop method, - It's a good idea to add a SvcShutdown method to service.py. - It would suffice to add SvcShutdown = SvcStop to service.py. If nobody disagrees (or even if everyone disagrees except Mark wink), I'll add that to the various Zope branches. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote: - the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable. I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This will hold up the release schedule. Is this a commonly-known thing? I mean, it's fine with me, but I just had no idea. If it's true, I will try to help enforce it when I see checkins that violate it. This has been Zope 2 develpment policy for years: http://www.zope.org/DevHome/Subversion/ZopeSVNFAQ We haven't been doing this for Zope 3, but I think we need to start doing something like this. The rule for Zope 3 has been that the trunk needs to be stable, but that isn't enough. I think the rule should be that the trunk should be ready to make a beta release at any time. We shouldn't check things into the trunk that would prevent a bets. There is a little bit more flexability for Zope 3 because we don't release the whole repository. The Zope 3 repository tree has parts that aren't and may never be released. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Just an idea: One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not have a traversing adapter. Stupid or brilliant? :) I know Florent had some ideas of doing this integration too. It's an interesting idea. That said, I don't think we should add this to Zope 2.9, unless a developer gets really enthusiastic in the near future and takes responsibility for this. My idea was to do a big cleanup of Zope 2's traversal mechanisms. The problem is that it will by necessity get rid some of the idiosyncrasies (read: cruft and incoherences) of the current one, and in the process probably break stuff. Which means it has to be optional, which adds even more complexity to the code :( So in the end the realities of backward compatibility are a big hurdle. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote: Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned for Zope 2.9: * blob storage, file iterators Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before 2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate for a 2.8-dot release because it's backwards compatible and optional. It ahould be done (needs a bit more testing and some minor implementation decisions) in the next few weeks, I suspect. It can't go into a bug fix release because it is a new feature. Perhaps you can find a way to release it as an add-on product. It would be good for people to get some experience with it before it is released in a stable release. Filestream iterators are already in 2.8 (they were added somewhere in 2.7). Cool. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
--On 17. Juni 2005 10:04:41 -0400 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote: - the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable. I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This will hold up the release schedule. Is this a commonly-known thing? I mean, it's fine with me, but I just had no idea. If it's true, I will try to help enforce it when I see checkins that violate it. This should be the goal when we would switch. Imagine some use the trunk to implement some very cool feature but it will not get finished in time or has lots of outstanding bugs. When switching to a time-based schedule it would be a lot of work to remove this stuff from the trunk which possibly could break other stuff. Ok, most people already develop on branches and merge their stuff when it is finished. I also have no problems with short-time and isolated developments on the trunk but as soon as a developments affects multiple parts of the core it should be made on a branch only be merged after a review or only when the developer is 110% sure about his work. This means that the trunk should in theory always in a state where we could cut a release from... Andreas pgp2gDQL6dYqL.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Florent Guillaume wrote: Just an idea: One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not have a traversing adapter. Stupid or brilliant? :) I know Florent had some ideas of doing this integration too. It's an interesting idea. That said, I don't think we should add this to Zope 2.9, unless a developer gets really enthusiastic in the near future and takes responsibility for this. My idea was to do a big cleanup of Zope 2's traversal mechanisms. The problem is that it will by necessity get rid some of the idiosyncrasies (read: cruft and incoherences) of the current one, and in the process probably break stuff. Which means it has to be optional, which adds even more complexity to the code :( So in the end the realities of backward compatibility are a big hurdle. Yes, this is hard, but we need to do things like this. In the short term, it make make the code uglier, due to the backward compatibility code, but we'll be on the road to cleaning it up because we will have provided deprecation warnings letting people know about the coming changes. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On 6/17/05, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rule for Zope 3 has been that the trunk needs to be stable, but that isn't enough. I think the rule should be that the trunk should be ready to make a beta release at any time. +1e79 -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before 2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate for a 2.8-dot release because it's backwards compatible and optional. It ahould be done (needs a bit more testing and some minor implementation decisions) in the next few weeks, I suspect. It can't go into a bug fix release because it is a new feature. Perhaps you can find a way to release it as an add-on product. It really can't be released as an add-on Product (big P) for Zope unless we were willing to introduce the ZODB hooks it depends upon within ZODB itself. It would be counterproductive to release it as an add-on product that monkeypatches ZODB. That said, it's really not a Zope feature, it's entirely a ZODB feature (save for the zconfig magic that stitches it in to Zope's config file). I guess there could be some sort of standalone ZODB release that included blobs. If someone expresses a desire for that, I'd be happy to create it along with a tiny Zope product that stitched the blobstorage stuff into Zope's config machinery. But if no one expresses an interest, I probably won't. It would be good for people to get some experience with it before it is released in a stable release. We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Yup. I think the reality of the situation was that there was such a long stretch between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0 that it became impractical to not do this. But if we go to time based major releases, this becomes irrelevant, so hopefully that works! - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Max M wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope* is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6 months and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the current Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part. Will they have the same relase date or will they be offset by a few months or something? They will have the same release date, same announcement, etc. Essentially, a single logical release, with a number of separate release files reflecting different platforms and configurations. This definitely gets me worried about coordinating everybody. We need very good planning to pull this off, something we haven't shown in previous Zope 2 or Zope 3 release processes. Perhaps a little ambitious? Actually, I think that time-based releases make planning fairly easy. There *will absolutely* be a Zope (23) feature freeze and beta release November 1 (or sooner if we think that this leaves too little time for a beta cycle). There *will* be a final release in December, come hell or high water. If you think this is to ambitious, then lets move the freeze/beta up to give us more time for bug fixes, say October 1? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. Strongly agree. By my count there have been 22 features added between 2.7.1 and 2.7.6 (notably including a heavy overhaul of transient objects and sessioning, addition of the filestream iterator, and a host of improvements to ZopeFind, text file support, test.py, restructured text, etc). That's a hell of a lot of useful stuff that would have had to wait the 16 months between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:00 -0400, Paul Winkler wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. Strongly agree. By my count there have been 22 features added between 2.7.1 and 2.7.6 (notably including a heavy overhaul of transient objects and sessioning, addition of the filestream iterator, and a host of improvements to ZopeFind, text file support, test.py, restructured text, etc). That's a hell of a lot of useful stuff that would have had to wait the 16 months between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0. Yup. Even on the 2.6 branch we put in dot-release features of the same ilk. (Probably because the period between 2.6 and 2.7 was roughly the same as the period between 2.7 and 2.8). - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
Paul Winkler wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. Strongly agree. By my count there have been 22 features added between 2.7.1 and 2.7.6 (notably including a heavy overhaul of transient objects and sessioning, addition of the filestream iterator, and a host of improvements to ZopeFind, text file support, test.py, restructured text, etc). That's a hell of a lot of useful stuff that would have had to wait the 16 months between 2.7.0 and 2.8.0. Fortunately, we'll be making feature releases every 6 months, so this should not be a problem. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc list (if you're allowed to post there as well :-) Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic, with good ideas and comments made by all. While all of us at Zope Corp appreciate the input, we can't lose sight of two points: 1) Even though lots of the Rock Stars of the Zope Community are on one or both of these lists, not all are, and certainly not the entire Zope Community (especially _customers_), so these lists cannot substitute for the entire input stream. 2) We have called for an International IRC chat to discuss this next Tuesday, and tried to pick a time that could work for people from the West Coast of the US all the way to hardy souls in Asia, but at least Eastern Europe. Until people can weigh in and get a sense of everyone's responses, this list is just fodder for that discussion. As such, it is highly unlikely that I will post again on this specific thread to these lists before the IRC, so _please_ don't be offended if you have a fantastic rebuttal to a point that I try to make here, and don't get a response. I just subscribed to the z3lab list (I'm not on dev), and will see your response, and hopefully prepare a ZC response for the IRC. OK, enough with the background, on to make some points :-) I found all of the discussion interesting, but I am also confused by some of it. Specifically, the use of the Plone Foundation as the model that we should all aspire to. If I understand my facts correctly, the Plone Foundation was kicked off (and likely funded by) Computer Associates (CA). They still have 2 board seats as far as I can see. In fact, for all the rhetoric about individuals, each board member has their company named after them, which implies to me that people looking at that list should assume that they vote the way their company would want them to, not the way they feel about specific issues. Specifically, if Norm Patriquin of CA leaves CA, will he remain a board member, or does CA have some right to appoint another director in his place? If the answer is that CA controls the board seat, then please let's stop pretending that this is all about individuals. It's obvious that companies do not vote, individuals vote. It is also obvious that individuals who represent companies are more likely to vote in a direction that is good for their company. Nothing wrong with that (IMHO) as long they can't force something on the rest of the members. Second, if we had adopted the Plone Foundation organization verbatim, just changing the word Plone to Zope, would that have been 100% satisfactory to everyone in the Zope world? If so, that would surprise me, but more importantly, it would still have been a unilateral move on our part, not to even allow potential dissenters a say. In other words, there is no one model that will work for everyone, and we are being careful not to set _anything_ in stone until we hear everyone's thoughts. If we intended to act unilaterally, and in only our interests, we would have announced a completed Foundation with a take it or leave it attitude, or we would have put a very short date on getting it done. Instead, we announced that it would be done by the end of October 2005, so that _this_ process could have a real chance to succeed in an open manner. No one has a gun to our head to do this, and in fact, no one has the slightest leverage on us to do this. We are doing it because we _want_ to, because we think it's the _right thing do_, and because we think the timing is right with Zope 3 ready for prime time, and ready to explode. If we wanted to try and retain the maximum benefit from that explosion, we would probably just keep it all to ourselves. We are not, and we would like at least the benefit of the doubt as to our motives, if not an actual Thank You :-) Like Stefane, we too are slightly leaning towards an Eclipse model. In that model, committers are first-class members, and do _not_ pay dues! Companies and Customers (in their term Consumers) are first-class members too, but not only pay dues (don't worry, we won't charge what they do ;-), but also _have to commit development resources_. No one vendor has _any_ control of _anything_ in the Eclipse Foundation, but they don't apologize for the fact that the underlying software is _strategic_ to the Vendor organizations in their attempt to make a profit. Stefane Fermigier wrote: IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as vendor-free. I agreed, and would add that vendor-neutral can also (and IMHO should) be vendor-friendly. Let's not forget that ZPL is not GPL. We chose a commercially friendly license 7 years ago, and have only made it friendlier to
[Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a no new features in third-dot releases policy *after* we get a timeboxed release process in place? I have some recollection that a hard-nosed application of such a policy in ZODB land contributed to the creation of the dead-end 3.3 release line, never incorporated in any released Zope2 / Zope3 version. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCsvsB+gerLs4ltQ4RAkJzAKC/9ZzsDNmhJ7zLC8dOQ77FKowouwCgu5RV iZ9fsxZWKXYVwY5bVZfwA/g= =3/4a -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a no new features in third-dot releases policy *after* we get a timeboxed release process in place? I have some recollection that a hard-nosed application of such a policy in ZODB land contributed to the creation of the dead-end 3.3 release line, never incorporated in any released Zope2 / Zope3 version. Which is just fine IMO. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ... I can't think of any open source foundation that has company voting in the governance. There is a role for companies, as sponsors. But, not in the governance. Stefane pointed out the Eclipse Foundation already, so it's a little surprising that you are still looking for an example of another successful open source Foundation that is also openly vendor friendly, if not vendor driven. The Python Software Foundation has company members with Company-specific votes. When I attend PSF meetings, I vote twice, once for myself and once for ZC. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a no new features in third-dot releases policy *after* we get a timeboxed release process in place? I have some recollection that a hard-nosed application of such a policy in ZODB land contributed to the creation of the dead-end 3.3 release line, never incorporated in any released Zope2 / Zope3 version. Which is just fine IMO. Such an outcome might be acceptable, but could hardly be called desirable. I'll note that a *big* pile of potentially useful ZODB features were pretty much inaccessible to the Zope2 community from the date of the first 3.3a1 release, nearly two years ago[1], until the release of Zope 2.8 last month. This timespan, eerily enough, coincides almost exactly with the life of the Zope 2.7 release cycle[2]. I know how and why the loss happened (I helped *make* it happen, I'm afraid), but I don't want it to happen again. Moving to time-based releases should help with the problem, but we aren't there yet, and won't be for a year (a successful delivery in December could be a fluke). [1] \ http://www.zope.org/Products/ZODB3.3/NEWS.html#what-s-new-in-zodb3-3-3-alpha-1 [2] http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.6/CHANGES.txt Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCswEA+gerLs4ltQ4RAmv6AJ98s+dbAbB81g8lRpcRaDHjcyVpMACgq0Ak GK6MYOUvPrazO5oJDn5xXIo= =1SET -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
[Tres Seaver] Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Like that's going to change wink. Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a no new features in third-dot releases policy *after* we get a timeboxed release process in place? I have some recollection that a hard-nosed application of such a policy in ZODB land contributed to the creation of the dead-end 3.3 release line, never incorporated in any released Zope2 / Zope3 version. Various versions of ZODB 3.3 were shipped with various ZopeX3-3.0.0 releases, but ZODB is also used by people who don't run Zope. The latter is why I make standalone ZODB releases, which have no dependence at all on Zope. While I have timed ZODB releases entirely based on what various Zopes seem to need, I try to do that in ways that make good sense for standalone-ZODB users too. Starting a ZODB 3.4 for new features (and new deprecations) was necessary for ZODB's other users (despite not being crucial for Zope's purposes). ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: ... We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases. This has worked pretty well for the last few years. I wasn't aware of this and I don't think it's a good policy. Feature releases should be backward compatible. Bug-fix releases should be for bug fixes. Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a no new features in third-dot releases policy *after* we get a timeboxed release process in place? I have some recollection that a hard-nosed application of such a policy in ZODB land contributed to the creation of the dead-end 3.3 release line, never incorporated in any released Zope2 / Zope3 version. Which is just fine IMO. Such an outcome might be acceptable, but could hardly be called desirable. I'm not sure what outcome you are refering to. Surely not the dead-end of 3.3. I'll note that a *big* pile of potentially useful ZODB features were pretty much inaccessible to the Zope2 community from the date of the first 3.3a1 release, nearly two years ago[1], until the release of Zope 2.8 last month. This timespan, eerily enough, coincides almost exactly with the life of the Zope 2.7 release cycle[2]. Of course, ZODB 3.3 was technically incompatible with Zope 2.7 because it required new-style classes. There's nothing we could have done to make those features accessable sooner short of a major architectural change which, frankly, we could not afford. I know how and why the loss happened (I helped *make* it happen, I'm afraid), but I don't want it to happen again. Moving to time-based releases should help with the problem, but we aren't there yet, Right, we are going there. That's what the discussion is about. We have to start some time. We are going to start in December. We couldn't start for Zope 2.9 or 3.1 because we were already committed to changes that were in and needed time to finish. This won't happen in the future because we know that something can't be checked into the trunk unless it is ready for beta and we know that there will be a definate date for the beta. Anything not in by then won't be in the release. and won't be for a year (a successful delivery in December could be a fluke). This makes no sense to me at all. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 13:00 -0400, Tim Peters wrote: [Tres Seaver] Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification). Like that's going to change wink. Over the last year Tres, Andreas, Tim, Fred, Jim, Florent, Stefan H., Yvo, Sidnei, Christian T., Chris W., Christian T., Mark, Jens, Brian, Tino, Paul W., Lennart, dunny, and Dieter (by proxy ;-) have all contributed code to Zope 2 one degree or another. Policy aside, I trust all of these people implicitly to do the right thing with judging whether a feature should make it into a dot release and I wouldn't complain any of them snuck a minor feature into one. If one of them got out of control (that Tim character is a wild-man!), I'm sure somebody would notice and go hose them down. If time-based releases prove not to work out, I'd hope we could revert to that sort of common-sense defacto process. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote: Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc. +1 if only because... From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues. I think the dues structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a member. I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford it. It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired. - C There are different aspects: there is the involvement of individual developers and there is the involvement of the company / university / organisation without which the developers would not be able to sustain development outside their spare time. So reducing involvement to a collection of individual members is not very representative of reality. If a company has put a lot a stake in a given technology (meaning not only financing a handful of developers) but taking a technological risk at supporting zope , it ought to weigh in the balance. Then of course everyone is free to do development in their spare time. regards /JM ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Zope 2.9 goals
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:17:13 -0400 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Policy aside, I trust all of these people implicitly to do the right thing with judging whether a feature should make it into a dot release and I wouldn't complain any of them snuck a minor feature into one. If one of them got out of control (that Tim character is a wild-man!), I'm sure somebody would notice and go hose them down. I agree totally. As RM I would have been task to enforce this policy. But because given the fact we had very long release cycles adding new minor feature was acceptable and worked more or less fine - not perfectly but it worked. Otherwise the complete Z2 development would have stand still. So for me time-based releases will only work if people show responsibility and commitment. -aj pgpxpcsIIFHUX.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.9 goals
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:17:27PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote: Fortunately, we'll be making feature releases every 6 months, so this should not be a problem. OK. Assuming the new release process works as intended, fine w/ me. Maybe this should be clarified on the SVN / CVS FAQ pages? -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
I found this interesting enough to look into anyway... for anybody who is interested, here's the scoop. CA has 2 seats out of 9 on the Plone Foundation board. Apparently there's special treatment of these seats via http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/special_seats which is mostly a perk to CA for providing $100,000 (!) in seed funding. There is a special provision in place for allowing CA to keep these board seats. That candiacy provision can apparently be voted out only by the Board itself (these seats cannot be filled with non-CA people via a normal general election). Beyond this rule, there don't seem to be any bylaws to keep this ratio of individuals-to-companies intact. An advisory nonvoting seat on the board was created for Porter-Novelli due to their willingness to provide pro-bono marketing. The rest of the board seats are filled with independents and people representing smaller companies, all of whom are coders and could have only been elected on merit (I suspect there's just not enough at stake for it to have happened any other way ;-). The Eclipse foundation has 19 total board members, 6 of whom appear to have been elected based on some definition of merit. Of the remaining 13 seats, 10 seats are filled with representatives of Strategic Developer companies (the companies own the seats presumably as long as they keep funding the foundation), and 3 are filled with Add-In Provider company seats (these seats can be kept by their original owners if they move from company to company as long as they fit the requirements of a Committer Member). There are rules in their bylaws that serve to keep this relative funder-to-individual Board member ratio intact. The Apache Software Foundation has 9 members (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/). I don't recognize all the names, but at least three are definitely coders, and companies are not mentioned at all. Their bylaws have no math in them for retaining board seats based on payment into the foundation, but maybe there is some informal agreement. research'ly y'rs - C On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:32 -0400, Hadar Pedhazur wrote: My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc list (if you're allowed to post there as well :-) Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic, with good ideas and comments made by all. While all of us at Zope Corp appreciate the input, we can't lose sight of two points: 1) Even though lots of the Rock Stars of the Zope Community are on one or both of these lists, not all are, and certainly not the entire Zope Community (especially _customers_), so these lists cannot substitute for the entire input stream. 2) We have called for an International IRC chat to discuss this next Tuesday, and tried to pick a time that could work for people from the West Coast of the US all the way to hardy souls in Asia, but at least Eastern Europe. Until people can weigh in and get a sense of everyone's responses, this list is just fodder for that discussion. As such, it is highly unlikely that I will post again on this specific thread to these lists before the IRC, so _please_ don't be offended if you have a fantastic rebuttal to a point that I try to make here, and don't get a response. I just subscribed to the z3lab list (I'm not on dev), and will see your response, and hopefully prepare a ZC response for the IRC. OK, enough with the background, on to make some points :-) I found all of the discussion interesting, but I am also confused by some of it. Specifically, the use of the Plone Foundation as the model that we should all aspire to. If I understand my facts correctly, the Plone Foundation was kicked off (and likely funded by) Computer Associates (CA). They still have 2 board seats as far as I can see. In fact, for all the rhetoric about individuals, each board member has their company named after them, which implies to me that people looking at that list should assume that they vote the way their company would want them to, not the way they feel about specific issues. Specifically, if Norm Patriquin of CA leaves CA, will he remain a board member, or does CA have some right to appoint another director in his place? If the answer is that CA controls the board seat, then please let's stop pretending that this is all about individuals. It's obvious that companies do not vote, individuals vote. It is also obvious that individuals who represent companies are more likely to vote in a direction that is good for their company. Nothing wrong with that (IMHO) as long they can't force something on the rest of the members. Second, if we had adopted the Plone Foundation organization verbatim, just changing the word Plone to Zope, would that have been 100% satisfactory to everyone in the Zope world? If so, that would
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
Chris McDonough wrote: On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote: Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc. +1 if only because... From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues. Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details... Philipp ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Corporation's Initial Reaction on the ZF Comments
[Chris McDonough] ... The Apache Software Foundation has 9 members (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/). Their board of directors has 9 members, but the ASF has many more members than that: http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html I don't recognize all the names, but at least three are definitely coders, and companies are not mentioned at all. Their bylaws have no math in them for retaining board seats based on payment into the foundation, but maybe there is some informal agreement. I doubt it, because the Python Software Foundation's (of which I'm a director) bylaws were modeled on the ASF's. For both, you can become a member only by being nominated by an existing member, and then voted in by a majority of existing members. Anyone (regardless of whether they're a member) can sit on the board, and the board is determined solely by membership vote. So any informal agreement would have to be embraced by a majority of the members to be effective, and that's just unlikely. For the PSF, a sure way to get on the Board is to say you're willing to do it 0.3 wink; I imagine it's similar with the ASF. We should note that the ASF and PSF are both 501(c)(3) non-profits under US tax law, which puts imprecise but serious legal bounds on how much they _can_ be controlled by, or benefit, a small group without getting into deep legal doo doo. In effect, we endure those restrictions so that US contributors can get a tax deduction, and to make legal actions against us especially unattractive (this one's complicated, but it's not a coincidence that you don't hear about many people suing the Red Cross wink). I don't know which part of the non-profit spectrum the Zope Foundation is aiming at, but I'd guess that the ZF wouldn't want to hassle with a charity's legal restrictions (yup, the PSF is a public charity in US legal jargon, same as the Red Cross). ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: Zope(ish) Windows services vs shutdown
[Tim] So, best guesses (please scream where I'm wrong): - This is because service.py doesn't define a SvcShutdown method, just a SvcStop method, - It's a good idea to add a SvcShutdown method to service.py. - It would suffice to add SvcShutdown = SvcStop to service.py. If nobody disagrees (or even if everyone disagrees except Mark wink), I'll add that to the various Zope branches. Thanks Tim - I'd never noticed that omission. You are completely correct. I'll test this next time I need to reboot (which contrary to popular opinion isn't that often wink). Mark. ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues. Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details... I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would be a subscriber-only thing. The interview will be available for free on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) . But of you're desperate, subscriptions at the starving hacker level are apparently something stupid low like $2.50US/month. - C ___ 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/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
