Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Chris Withers wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2. A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2 shouldn't be merged in with Zope 3 ;-) Actually, yes, all of my points were made to that end--so AFAICT you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. :-) Gary ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote: Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the object filing system (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them contain. Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. I was counting on you making exactly this suggestion. :-) I agree with all of that. +lots ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Gary Poster wrote: Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2. A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2 shouldn't be merged in with Zope 3 ;-) Put differently, if we're merging in Zope 2 into the repository, then why not SchoolTool, or any of the other projects that _use_ Zope 3? Zope 2 devs don't have to touch Zope 3 unless they want to leverage some cool new feature--in which case they are Zope Five devs, probably. Zope 3 devs must touch Zope 2, in this new world order, whether they want to or not, when changes break the stuff that Zope 2 has leveraged. I don't agree. Again, if Zope 3 changes break SchoolTool, is that a Zope 3 developer problem or a SchoolTool problem? FOrcing the maintenance of Zope 2 onto the already overloaded Zope 3 devs seems a little unfair... The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not. And this for me, means that even if the repos merge, so evil svn:externals can be avoided, the tests should not be run together on the Zope 3 side, and Zope 3 should come bundled with Zope 2, even if Zope 2 comes bundled with Zope 3 and Five! cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Chris McDonough wrote: I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no matter what happens. Chris, I won't bother you with a detailed answer (esp. to some points that were not quite correct about Zope 3 not caring about backward compat). I just wanted to say that I also really, really appreciate your taking time to write this post. You're exactly the kinda guy my proposal is addressing: Lots of Zope 2 experience on dead serious sites, lots of ideas on how to improve certain things in Zope 3, but no or little opportunity so far to get your hands dirty. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: [snip] And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. People building on Zope 3 will presumably mostly be working with a Zope 3 release, which will not include Zope 2. So, they cannot be confused by Zope 2 in that way. But if they're to become Zope 3 core developers they'll have to learn about this, yes. I'm more concerned about the acceptance of Zope3 outside the Zope community because Zope2 developers will have to move to Zope3 at a certain time. It's juste much more easier than for the first people. [snip] I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. I don't think it is easy at all. While any competent Zope 2 developer will be able to learn about Zope 3, there's also the question of motivation and opportunity to do so. Only thanks to Five is the Plone community making any move to Zope 3 at all, for instance. There's a pretty huge barrier between Zope 2 and Zope 3 and only recently has it been slowly coming down in the minds of Zope 2 developers. While I don't doubt developers will be coming to Zope 3 from outside the Zope community, I also think that by far the biggest amount of developers will be coming from *within* the Zope community, and if we want to gain more developers for Zope 3, *that* is the best place to look. It's our community, let's take care of it. The challenge is people outside the Zope community and I'm more worried about them. Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. There is a lot of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing particularly well in this competition, something we need to fix, but that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing we can do at present to grow the Zope 3 community. 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: ... Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. There is a lot of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing particularly well in this competition, something we need to fix, but that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing we can do at present to grow the Zope 3 community. Regards, Martijn Hi, It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. My vote is a +1 too. Maybe it is time retract the proposal? Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from people using Five. We are not even getting bug reports. Maybe because the small part of Zope 3 they use through Five is well tested? Frankly if someone refactors Zope 3 and this causes tests breakage in Zope 2 or Five tests, a Zope 2 or a Five developer will be happy to fix them very quickly, and there's a 50% chance that it will reveal something missed in the Zope 3 tests. Also I've seen some comments that the Zope 3 base will become polluted, that's nonsense, there will always be pure packages of Zope 3 out there without the Zope 2 part. Remember this is a proposal about merging repositories only, so that lots of time is not wasted setting up sandboxes, merging stuff left and right, and running tests in some forgotten area that also matters. And if Zope 3 developers don't want to run the Zope 2 tests because they're costly in time, it's trivial to do so. 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote: - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the Z3 community to backwards compatibility as there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where he says I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I like this analysis. :) I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects more complicated than code, higher level, etc. I don't necessarily agree with the underlying assumptions. While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I really think that this is not the right level to solve community issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing will happen. Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the technical and the community level is far less clear than you make it seem. Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's *minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go hand in hand. Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2 and Zope 3 development. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and* community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not artificially separate the two issues. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 24 Nov 2005, at 10:54, Florent Guillaume wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. My vote is a +1 too. +1 from me, too 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology and zope3 wants the zope2 community. I like this analysis. :) I think the question about the technology should be treated as such on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). But the question about the communities involves more complicated aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a social contract is agreed on. Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects more complicated than code, higher level, etc. I don't necessarily agree with the underlying assumptions. While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I really think that this is not the right level to solve community issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing will happen. Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the technical and the community level is far less clear than you make it seem. Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's *minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go hand in hand. Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2 and Zope 3 development. So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological level even though lots of it can .. We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and* community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not artificially separate the two issues. Regards, Martijn Hi Martijn, I think you're mixing the notions of community and of community of interests. I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make good software and not have different entities fight on framework technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology. On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound. Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a strong community of interests. I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force people into communities through technology. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote: [snip] I think you're mixing the notions of community and of community of interests. I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make good software and not have different entities fight on framework technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology. On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound. Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a strong community of interests. I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force people into communities through technology. How do you know what I want? I indeed do not understand your point. I'm not sure you understand mine, as you seem to be partially telling me things I already understand, and partially arguing with things that aren't my position. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Martijn Faassen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. +100 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: ... People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they wanna buy a bridge? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jim Fulton wrote: Jens Vagelpohl wrote: ... People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they wanna buy a bridge? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. The arguments against this were: * there's a lively development community around Five, don't worry * Five has a minimal impact on Zope 2; Zope 2 sources itself weren't changing. Both were true. I don't think it was claimed that your development style wouldn't be affected, as obviously we hope people will actually *use* Five in Zope 2 development. With Zope 2.9, this story is starting to change, as Zope 3 technology is making it deeper into Zope 2. Then again, I think the people who worried then have been becoming more familiar with Five since then, so hopefully appreciate it more now as a feature, not just as a potential maintenance burden. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. - 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Chris McDonough wrote: On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. It makes me happy to hear that. Thanks! 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I love this idea! But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it. In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself should be, especially the idea of core. A couple of years ago, in the Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in the core of Zope 3. At the time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction. Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the object filing system (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them contain. Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework - Use a common security framework - Share common ZPT implementations I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how the Zope application server efforts should be managed. I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. Jim P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) -- 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:42 AM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote: - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the Z3 community to backwards compatibility as there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where he says I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. That's good! But maybe you can clarify. You said in response to Phillipp's proposal that you needed to make deep changes to Zope 3 in the past and if the Z2 repository was merged you would be unwilling to make such contributions again. The implication seems to be that being able to change the codebase without regard to its external dependents is one of your main requirements for Z3 contribution. Is that not what you meant? - 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:17:02 -0800, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework - Use a common security framework - Share common ZPT implementations Can I add use a common datetime implementation? ;) I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. Thanks a lot for your clarification, Jim - and on behalf of the Plone community, thanks for making things easier to plan around. If we know that such a transition is coming, we can plan for it. Reuniting the two efforts is critical for the survival of everyone involved in the Zope 2 and Zope 3 worlds. P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) P.S. Try plone-users. Bring your waders. ;) -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Jim Fulton wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I love this idea! Ok. But I think it's still a bit too early to pursue it. Perhaps so. Other people have given me that impression too, so there might be some truth in it. In the next release cycle, I want to, finally, revisit what Zope 3 itself should be, especially the idea of core. A couple of years ago, in the Zope 3 community, we debated what should be in the core of Zope 3. At the time. I fealt that that such a debate would be too much of a distraction. Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I agree. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the object filing system (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them contain. Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. Maybe not so. I think the essential vibe of the proposal remains: we want to converge on a technical level. And, as it has been expressed through my prosopal, it is my belief that this can be best achieved in one sandbox, not two. The following paragraph is a clear statement of yours on priorities, which I'll take as an edict. As my proposal points out, I set priorities a bit differently, but nonetheless I want to narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3 as soon as possible, too. On the topic of leveraging Zope 2 developers for Zope 3, I'd first like to leverage more Zope 2 developers for Zope 2. :) I'd like to see people focussing more effort on the Zope 3 in Zope 2 work and narrow the gap between Zope 2 and Zope 3. I'm thrilled with the effort you and others have put in and am very hopeful that the Goldegg initiative will focus more effort here, as it already has. Some projects that I'd really like to see worked on soon: - Use a common publisher framework +1 - Use a common security framework +1, though that'll be hard... I'll probably have to pass on this one. - Share common ZPT implementations +1 I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. Me too. After these things are done, and after we've had a chance to revisit the Zope 3 software organization, would be a good time to revisit how the Zope application server efforts should be managed. Sounds like a good idea. I'll also soon bring in a proposal dealing with some minor issues that allow us to close many smaller gaps. Like someone in this huge thread suggested (can't remember who), there won't be much left of Zope 2 than Zope2, OFS, AccessControl, Acquisition, ZPublisher and Products... I really want to reunite the Zope 2 and Zope 3 comunities. I'd be happy if, by the end of 2006 we could retire the Zope 3 lists and merge the discussions back into the main zope lists. +100 P.S. Wow, what a huge number of messages in a day. :) Tell me about it :). 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. Me too. PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further fivification of zope 2. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. -- 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] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 11/24/05 8:54 AM, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. - C As was I. Five has brought me and a few others I know closer to Zope 3. This is a huge win. Many of us have lots of experience to bring to the benefit of the Z3 community. As a result, I am excited to take even more strides to Z3. Phillips goal is a good one. The challenge is if there is resistance, how to smooth the bridge. Rather then Z3 developers shoot it down outright, they should provide reasonable alternatives (other then doomsday scenarios). It is a good thing to bring more developers into the Z3 community, many of us Z2 developers are hungry for this. I don't know the answer for every developer on either side of this argument, but there must be an effective compromise out there. The two groups need to work to come to that solution and not alienate one or the other or blindly shoot it down and hope it will go away. It's unreasonable to do so. Taking my ball and heading homely, Andrew ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Paul Winkler wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I'd love to participate in some sprints on these. Me too. PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further fivification of zope 2. That'd be really cool. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend PyCon, but I'm very curious) 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend PyCon, but I'm very curious) http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Talks They're just basic How to develop with Zope and ...CMF talks, with as much Five as I can squeeze in since it's 2006 and it would be criminal to ignore it :-) I will not even remotely attempt to be comprehensive or deep. It will be very challenging to work in the short time slots alotted! I was a bit surprised that both talks were accepted, I figured I'd be trumped by presentations from better-known people, but maybe there weren't any! -- 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 09:17, Jim Fulton wrote: Now (well, after the December release :), I think it's time to revisit what the core of Zope 3 is and how we manage the repository. There has been a trend to manage important components separately and link them in. I see this trend continuing. The advent of eggs and continuing maturation of zpkg and testing technology will accelerate this trend, IMO. I think that in the future, there may be a much smaller core Zope 3 project that represents the object filing system (zope.ofs? :). This core project may be a client of a collection of much smaller projects, such as zope.interface, zope.component. etc.. If that vision comes to pass, Zope 2 will no longer contain the Zope 3 core, but they will both share a large number of components which neither of them contain. Obviously, this would radically change the nature of this debate. I was counting on you making exactly this suggestion. :-) I agree with all of that. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository Indeed this is madness I think I like. :) This sounds like a sensible step to make after the Zope 2.9/Zope 3.2 release. +1 from me. 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record, and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1. I think it will place too much burden on the small group of Zope 3 developers, some (many?) of whom do not develop or use Zope 2. Yes, I understand the corresponding response is that Zope 2 devs would theoretically contribute more to Zope 3. If the merge happens, I suppose we'll see if Zope 2 pollutes Zope 3, doesn't affect it, or helps it. Arguing about the future is a tough job. Gary ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I am a Zope 3 developer. If Zope 2 code is in the Zope 3 code base, I have to relearn it again and additionally learn Five. Why? Just so I can keep developing Zope 3. This may raise the contribution bar too high for me and I would consider stopping to contribute. If the bar is too high for me, what do you expect from other people? Next, there are several third party applications that do not care about Zope 2 either, but that use the trunk to do their development with. One example is SchoolTool. Having to checkout both, Zope 3 and 2 would just be ridiculous, to say the least! (Note that several contributions of mine during the last weeks were due to my work on SchoolTool using a writeable Zope 3 trunk checkout.) The proposal only benefits Zope 2 people, really. Sure, some of the stuff in Zope 2 that should be forward-ported, but that's minimal. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I am -1. If I could I would veto this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I'm -1 on this as well. Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... Cheers, J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo RD (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhMNqGhoG8MxZ/pIRArjpAJwImKaJLnGO9URfgakS6njnzWzwPwCggHnY KHhFGbndADW7GLL2UFv33Sw= =Yppy -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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 24 Nov 2005, at 00:09, Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 18:49, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Ok, I accept that, no problem at all. But why should this be any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. Personally, I have never advocated inserting Zope 3 into Zope 2. Some people really wanted Zope 3 in Zope 2, so that they could use the new technology. So they added it. That's fine by me. But if they then turn around and say, Look we have Zope 3 in Zope 2, so you should also have Zope 2 in Zope 3., then I am complaining loudly, because I do not want to have anything to do with Zope 2. And it just means that I am becoming a Zope 2 developer again. Forget that! I'd rather fork Zope 3, then work on a version that has Zope 2 in it. It is just too much overhead for me to know all the involved technologies (Zope 2 and Five). I have barely time to keep up with Zope 3 and stay on top of it. I believe your assertion that you have to deal with Zope2 and become a Zope 2 developer again is just plain wrong. As wrong as Zope2 developers have to be Zope3 developers. 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 )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Gary Poster wrote: Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository I already spoke with Philipp on IRC about this, but for the record, and speaking personally, and very arguably selfishly: -1. I think it will place too much burden on the small group of Zope 3 developers, some (many?) of whom do not develop or use Zope 2. You are correct and I'm not going to argue over facts. My perspective on those facts is different, though. The small group of Zope 3 developers, as you say yourself, could really use some help, couldn't it? I think a repository reunification (along with the development process reunification which has already happened for the most part), would actually shift more resources from Zope 2 to Zope 3 than the other way around. After all, all of the major Zope projects and solution providers do not argue with the fact that Zope 3 is the future. But, like Martin Aspeli nicely said, getting there is the hard part. Yes, I understand the corresponding response is that Zope 2 devs would theoretically contribute more to Zope 3. If the merge happens, I suppose we'll see if Zope 2 pollutes Zope 3, doesn't affect it, or helps it. Arguing about the future is a tough job. I don't think we have to be *that* speculative here. When some of the currently Zope-2-focused developers put their +1 on this proposal, I take it they also meant this as a commitment to further contribute to Zope 2 and 3. Thus by the amount of acceptance this proposal gathers, I think we can also measure the currently unused potential of Zope contributions. At least to a degree. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Dominik Huber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Stephan Richter wrote: This may raise the contribution bar too high. IMO that 's the most important point. It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2 developers tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all leans towards the positive, even for Zope 3 developers (joint efforts, more resources, bla bla. I could repeat myself...) Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. I think it's undebated that there will always be a Zope 3 distribution that contains the leanest and meanest Zope 3 components (what this distribution will look like in detail is something that Jim has been thinking about for some time now, but this is not part of this discussion). You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
While I don't agree with the +1 voters, I understand and appreciate their arguments. That said... On Nov 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3 doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Ok, I accept that, no problem at all. But why should this be any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. ...this is not true. Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2. Therefore, making a change in Zope 2 cannot affect functionality in the slightest, let alone break a test, in Zope 3. The same cannot be said of the reverse. Zope 2 devs don't have to touch Zope 3 unless they want to leverage some cool new feature--in which case they are Zope Five devs, probably. Zope 3 devs must touch Zope 2, in this new world order, whether they want to or not, when changes break the stuff that Zope 2 has leveraged. To grant a point to Philipp's argument, it's possible that changes that break Zope 2 are non-backwards-compatible changes in Zope 3 that should have been caught. But consider this story: a Zope 3 dev changes something and deprecates an API. As part of the dev's responsibility, the checkin also makes all code in Zope 3 use the replacement API. Now Zope 2 works, but is generating deprecation warnings whenever the deprecated API is called. Is it the Zope 3 dev's responsibility to change Zope 2 to eliminate the deprecation warnings? What about in the following release when the old Zope 3 API is eliminated--whose responsibility is it then to fix Zope 2? If you view Zope 2 as a downstream client of Zope 3, you probably give one answer; if you view the two projects as a mingled whole, you probably give another. The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not. Gary ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Julien Anguenot wrote: Some Zope3 developers don't care about Zope2 and this is fair enough in my point of view. Zope2 starts to get old and appears to be really a mess compared to Zope3 in *2005*, plus it's not such an attractive platform as it used to be couple of years ago. (Don't get me wrong on this. Time just changed. I'm using Zope2 much more than Zope3 nowadays and still I like it even if I'm *dreaming* about only using a modern platform à la Zope3) I would fear that some new folks might find the Zope3 project much more confusing and less attractive because of the Zope2 mess around. (common mailing list, common repository etc...) Please, let's not mess up Zope3... [...] You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. I'm more concerned about the acceptance of Zope3 outside the Zope community because Zope2 developers will have to move to Zope3 at a certain time. It's juste much more easier than for the first people. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! I understand your motivations Philipp. I just think this is too early. When Zope2 will look like a Zope3 'configuration' then maybe it could be of interest. There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. The challenge is people outside the Zope community and I'm more worried about them. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. I never said shitty. Take it easy on the interpretation. I'm using Zope2 for years and it's with what I'm working daily. I said *old* and it's different. It's not as attractive as it used to be couple of years ago. This is a fact. This is why Zope3 exists. I still believe your proposal would be a mistake at this point for Zope3. Cheers, J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo RD (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhTLOGhoG8MxZ/pIRAmSwAJ0e8d2S/lyXgeTm3dAQgqBh50eJzwCeONEC 52QuaUKLeFESP+Ytar3NkDE= =bc5x -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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:14, Gary Poster wrote: The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not. Amen. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: It raises the bar for Zope 3 developers a bit while lower the bar for Zope 2 developers tremendously. I'm looking at the bigger picture and see it all leans towards the positive, even for Zope 3 developers (joint efforts, more resources, bla bla. I could repeat myself...) I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. This raises the bar too high for me! 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just simply punishes all those early adopters of Zope 3 and throw it in their face. Great appreciation! 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Julien Anguenot wrote: And what about the acceptance of Zope3 *outside* the Zope community ? Zope3 will look like more complicated and confusing doing a merge. Why? The 'zope' namespace package is what Zope 3 is known as to outsiders and this will not be affected. I understand your motivations Philipp. I just think this is too early. Aha, it's at least good to hear that you don't condemn the idea itself. I too wondered whether it's too early or not. I think it's exactly the right time, as Zope 2 is embracing lots more Zope 3 technology. When Zope2 will look like a Zope3 'configuration' then maybe it could be of interest. Getting there is the hard part. This proposal is about easing that. I still believe Zope2 developers will come on Zope3 pretty easily. I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to move forward beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's great, but I don't think everyone is in that fortunate situation. Zope 2's architecture might be shitty, but its community is bigger, don't forget that. I never said shitty. Take it easy on the interpretation. Yes, yes. You know how to interpret shitty very well... old, worn-out, inflated, etc... Seriously, when everyone gives gigakudos to Florent and offers him 10 gallons of beer for looking through Zope 2 security code, I think at least the maintainability of some of the Zope 2 code is shitty, or at least perceived to be shitty. I still believe your proposal would be a mistake at this point for Zope3. So it's not a matter *if* but *when*. We're already one step further. I personally take on Martijn's suggestion and vote for after 2.8/3.2 is out. Why? Because some people, including me, have some major proposals for zope3ifying Zope 2 in the top-drawer of their desk, most of which would happen in 2.10 I presume. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the trunk, specifically from a Zope 3 developer's perspective. You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. How is it foolish? I have no need for Zope 2, so why should I maintain it? I only make money doing Zope 3 projects and as a hobby I only enjoy working with Zope 3 technologies. There is nothing in for me here. And this is true for any pure Zope 3 developer. Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. But I have to relearn it for the pure purpose of developing on the Zope 3 trunk. That's just not right! In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Yeah, you are forcing me to help you out! The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. It depends on the perspective you take. If you look at the whole community, then yes, we are probably in the minority (even though that counting all people that voted so far, there are more -1 votes). A more appropriate sample would be the people actually contributing to Zope 3 on a regular basis or the ones that exclusively use Zope 3. Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:01, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Messing up Zope 3 is specifically not the intention of this proposal. It says so explicitly in the Your questions answered section. Though it is not your intend, the merge would in fact mess up the trunk, specifically from a Zope 3 developer's perspective. Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year, I think (such as DocumentTemplate, StructuredText, etc., as they are duplicate implementations of zope.documenttemplate, zope.structuredtext, etc.). You state correctly that some Zope 3 developers don't care about Zope2. This might seem like a suitable point of view, but as Martijn pointed out very well, it's also a foolish one. It limits the acceptance of Zope 3 within the Zope community. How is it foolish? I have no need for Zope 2, so why should I maintain it? No one is asking you to maintain it. You're confusing maintance with bringing up to speed with refactorings. There is nothing in for me here. That I doubt. There's a lot of code and experience in the Zope 2 community which might be underestimated... Zope 2 is a mess, I give you that. I'm not asking any Zope 3 developer to re-embrace it, though. But I have to relearn it for the pure purpose of developing on the Zope 3 trunk. That's just not right! No one says you have relearn Zope 2; you merely have to run the tests. See my other post about this. In fact, the idea of this proposal is not that Zope 2 is going to stay with us forever. It is about speeding up the convergence process! There are a good amount of people, Martijn and me included, who are working towards improving Zope 2 and we simply want to attract more people to help us. Yeah, you are forcing me to help you out! So are you with zope.wfmc, zope.contentprovider, zope.viewlet and all those other things that you and others checked into Zope 3 and I have no clue about whatsoever. Sorry, this argument is moot because not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. The few Zope 3 developers [that] don't care about Zope2 are the minority and I think they could use the help from the rest of the Zope community. It depends on the perspective you take. If you look at the whole community, then yes, we are probably in the minority (even though that counting all people that voted so far, there are more -1 votes). A more appropriate sample would be the people actually contributing to Zope 3 on a regular basis or the ones that exclusively use Zope 3. Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. Sure, I realize that. Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. As I've pointed out before, I treat a +1 from an active Zope 2 developer as a commitment towards Zope 3 contributions. Even pure Zope 3 developers will benefit from that because it takes work off their shoulders. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Except that I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture. And the changes were deep. If there would be a merge, don't expect me to ever make such contributions again. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Note that I also understand your motivation on voting -1 quite well. Leaving everything as it is is simply the easier thing to do. For the moment... I will always vote -1 on such a move. I just simply punishes all those early adopters of Zope 3 and throw it in their face. Great appreciation! You know I can turn this around and say that by focusing all development on Zope 3, the Zope development team left Zope 2 out there to die in its old ways of doing things, despite the fact that some sort of transition capabilities were promised for a long time (maybe I needed to remind of you of this...). A rewrite from scratch is always easy, but dealing with the transition and deprecations is the hard work which is now left up to people who were early adopters of Zope *2* and hoping for that promised transition. Great appreciation! As you can see, this angle at looking things doesn't get us anywhere and I would rather not pursue it further. What I want is a sensible transition for the future. And it's not like Zope 2 people aren't willing to put an effort in it... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Stephan Richter wrote: On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:05, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Stephan Richter wrote: I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn Zope 2 and Five. What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest clue of how zope.wfmc works. Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I refactor something, I might even have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be very superficial. And if not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling reason why it should change. Except that I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture. And the changes were deep. If there would be a merge, don't expect me to ever make such contributions again. At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year Perhaps that would be a more suitable time to consider such a proposal. not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. We do need to be careful that any such transition is handled correctly or we risk flooding Z3 with people (justifiably) unfamiliar with the project while simultaneously disenfranchising existing developers. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:57, Benji York wrote: not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). Right, Jim's main motivation for getting buildbot set up was so that we could do cross-project testing. Zope3/ should no longer be seen as a dumping place for add-on packages, including zwiki and bugtracker. 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by yourself. Being stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they large or small, isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far backing up this proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing it. Right now there are more -1 votes than +1 votes. Maybe it is time retract the proposal? Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from people using Five. We are not even getting bug reports. 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 )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
--On 24. November 2005 07:09:00 +0100 Morten W. Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are not even getting bug reports. Likely because Zope 3 *just-works* :-) -aj pgpXitw6jKDrm.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] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 11/23/05, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using this group, we have about an 80-90% -1 vote count. I'll weigh in with a -1 as well, for all the reasons cited by the other -1 voters on this issue. Zope 2 and Zope 3 are far too different at this point. The only way I see for convergence to be a good thing is for Zope 2 to be essentially skin and configuration on top of Zope 3; I really don't want to end up with Zope 2. Jim's vision is strongly for convergence, and I'm sure he'll say that himself when he's back (he's away for a few days). I don't pretend to know what he'll say about this idea, though. I don't *think* he think's it's time, but he doesn't like people predicting what he'll say. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com There is no wealth but life. --John Ruskin ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
Benji York wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Really, *how* does it mess up the trunk? Half of the packages of Zope 2 are also in Zope 3 because they're either ZODB or Zope3-related anyway. Another quarter of the packages will go away within one year Perhaps that would be a more suitable time to consider such a proposal. Perhaps. Or perhaps it's exactly the right time for this proposal because of synergies. not too long ago the Zope 3 repository was strongly advertised as a place for people to put their Zope3-related software so that it would be kept up to speed with refactorings and such. If that offer was for non-Zope-core software, it should especially be good for Zope itself. I think the time has come for this to change. With a maturing code base and with systems like BuildBot we should be able to assure cross project testing (between Zope 2, Zope 3, and non-core projects). I agree that a buildbot system does solve problem #3 of my proposal (Zope 3 refactorings affect Zope 2), though only on the surface: we'd be knowing there's a problem but the person responsible for the refactoring can dump the responsiblity on someone else. Note however that I'm looking to get more Zope 3 contributors with this action. We do need to be careful that any such transition is handled correctly or we risk flooding Z3 with people (justifiably) unfamiliar with the project while simultaneously disenfranchising existing developers. I agree. This is why I've tried to put a lot of thought in this proposal and I'm inviting everyone to add your concerns as a (perhaps unanswered) question under the Your questions answered section. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ 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: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 04:56 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to move forward beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's great, but I don't think everyone is in that fortunate situation. I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no matter what happens. But I don't have much of a dog in this fight either way. If the SVN merge happened, that'd be ok with me; if it didn't, that'd be ok too. I'd personally be more likely to contribute to Z3 if it did happen, but given the extent of my recent contributions to Z2 (minimal lately), that may not be such a win for anybody. So I'm +0 on the idea. If it did happen, I'd do my best to help solve Five test failures caused by reasonable Z3 changes. All that said, because I think it may be valuable to somebody, I'll try to provide a perspective about convergence from someone who: - Is a long-time Z2 developer. - Works with Z2 more or less exclusively. - Does more paid work than volunteer work on Z2. (e.g. it's largely just business now, not a passion). This will be pretty long. ;-) As opposed to about 8 months ago, I'm not in a position anymore where I have zero clue about Zope 3. That said, any cluefulness that I have about Zope 3 stuff has come largely as a result of using Five for customer projects. So I'm still pretty clueless about huge swathes of Z3. I'd of course like to be less clueless. I do most of my learning on the job, so in order to really begin to use Z3 in anger, I'll need to use it for paid work. But it's unlikely that I can port *existing* Z2 customer projects over to pure Zope 3 if only because I really can't ethically charge someone to do that, nor do people really want to pay for it even if I could. It's great to be able to use Five to gradually use Z3 things but they'll never be Z3-only apps. They work just fine now under Z2 and will for a few more years at least. There's just no reason to port them. Of course it's possible that some future customer apps will be Z3 apps. That said, most of the work I get these days is in one of the following categories: - We have a slow Zope 2 application, please make it faster. - We are Zope 2 developers and we need some help on a specific piece of a project. These projects are often not good Z3 candidates for the same don't fix it if it aint broke reasons I mention above about existing customer projects. However, when new work comes in where it's simply in the form of a set of requirements rather than an already-running code base, I can of course choose to use Z3. These kinds of opportunities have presented themselves a few times in the last year or so. But I have to admit that each time one has, I've decided to stick with Z2 because not doing so would mean reimplementing (or at least porting) a lot of stuff that I know already exists for Z2 but which either has no Z3 analogue or at least has no Z3 analogue that I could personally vouch for without doing a lot of research. It's not really *major* stuff... cache managers, database adapters, transactional mail host tools, active directory connectors, heavy production sessioning requirements, blah blah blah. Any one of which could probably be researched in a day and coded up in less than another day. But it's a day and a half that I'd need to bill the customer for. Those days add up. And I like getting repeat business, so I try to keep customers happy by not taking them down ideological rabbit holes. Of course, there's a market bias here. I get more Z2 work because I've been doing Z2 work for a long time. I'm also currently much more valuable as a Z2 developer for the same reason. as As a Z3 book author, Stephan likely gets offers for work involving Z3 more than he does for work involving Z2. So it's easy to get tunnel-vision on both sides. Some observations that may be due to tunnel-vision that lead me away from developing pure Z3 apps: - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the Z3 community to backwards compatibility as there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where he says I have made deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. It seems to imply that Z3 is still in an alpha phase. I know *the software* isn't but if this sort of deep changes are still deemed necessary, the design appears to be, which makes it almost completely uninteresting to use for production systems. Z2, for all its other failings, makes deep commitments about backwards compatibility. This shackles it in many respects but it also makes it an attractive development platform for people who are concerned about just getting the job done and having their software work over a long period of time across major releases. - Z3 has naive or non-battle-tested implementations of key services.
