[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:39:21 -0800, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree :-) But I would like to see reasonable feedback from the Plone community about any problems with 2.9.0 to have them fixed for you in 2.9.1. Of course. We'd like to be running on 2.9 too. :) -- _ 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-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? -aj pgpe7aRijRBT4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:30:37 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:41 -0800, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? The Windows release is a big part of what makes Plone interesting to new adopters, so that is the primary one. ok In addition, I have yet to use a Zope release which didn't have serious problems in its .0 release. I'm not saying this *has* to be the case with the 2.9 release - just being realistic. ;) I agree :-) But I would like to see reasonable feedback from the Plone community about any problems with 2.9.0 to have them fixed for you in 2.9.1. -aj pgptKVZ0C.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
I agree that Five development should happen in Five 1.4. This version would then be the basis for Five in Zope 2.10. Increasing Zope 3 compatibility there is good and high priority. Doing so in Five 1.2 is quite low priroty, since that runs on an old version of Zope 3, on which new development seems...not a very high priority. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Martijn Faassen wrote: In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2 should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously which. 1.3 is already taken so we need some sort of suffix (a letter perhaps). Suggestions are welcome :). Ugh, soon we'll get Five 1.2-RC3-beta5-whatever. :) Hehe. Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this regard? Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8? Yes. Is CMF? CMF 1.6 is. I hope CMF 2.0 is not. I heard some mumblings perhaps 2.9 should be targetted. But perhaps Zope 2.8 is still solidly the target. Perhaps these use cases aren't driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified? The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from outside Products (so that they will still receive the same initialization features and an entry in the Control_Panel, etc.). The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages. For simplicity, both for the developers using Five as well as for the developers building Five, it'd be much easier if we could simply all agree new features go into Five 1.4 for Zope 2.9. Yes. I agree. I guess the only compelling reason to backport to Five 1.2 is to make people NOT upgrade to Zope 2.9 for this particular feature (product-less packages). Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. Then again, I'm not absolutely against continuing the Five 1.2 line with new features. Me neither. How to name it is indeed tricky. Perhaps in favor of comprehensibility we just want to name it 1.2.1, even though we add new features. While we cheat and add new features to what should be a pure bugfix release, potentially destabilizing it, I think it's easier on everyone's mind not to introduce a new line of Five 1.2's with features. Yes, on second thought I agree. I also still hope that the pressure to add new features to Five 1.2 will go away very quickly. Well, in five months we can retire Five 1.0 and 1.2 for good. I do not plan to maintain Five releases any longer than their corresponding Zope releases (others are welcome to do that, of course). Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On 16 Jan 2006, at 11:26, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Martijn Faassen wrote: Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this regard? Is Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8? Yes. Is CMF? CMF 1.6 is. I hope CMF 2.0 is not. CMF 1.6 will retain Zope 2.8 compatibility. CMF 2.0 is targeted at Zope 2.9. jens ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Tim Hicks wrote: The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages. You can turn that around; for consistency of installation experience in Zope 2.8, it's important that people don't get a new way of installing products, confusing innocent individuals installing Zope software. For the cutting edge, Zope 2.9, that argument is slightly different. Coming at this with a zope 2 head on, it seems to me that it might be nice if I could carry on using the Products directory so that when I add new 'products', I don't have to mix them in with the core zope code in lib/python/. What do you mean by core zope code? Zope lives in SOFTWARE_HOME/lib/python, e.g. /usr/local/Zope-2.9.0/lib/python, your own python packages live in INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python, e.g. /var/zope/foobar.com/lib/python. But the separation of 'core' and 'extras' gives me a comfortable feeling. Is it just me? Am I just stuck in the past? I think you're just confusing software home vs. instance home. We're not making you put stuff into software home (although you can if you really want to... you can even put stuff into site-packages or anywhere you want as long as it's in PYTHONPATH). Plus, just the fact that stuff *being* somewhere in the PYTHONPATH doesn't mean it gets loaded. You have to add a ZCML slug to INSTANCE_HOME/etc/package-includes first. So, you could install a package globally and just make it available to certain instances by placing a slug or not. This is how package deployment works in Zope 3 and it's where we're heading with Zope 2 as well. See http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2006_01_11_mata-los-productos for further info and some ranting as well as constructive suggestions. Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. There is at least one reason: People running python2.3 must switch to python2.4 for Zope 2.9. That's somewhat painful, at least on Windows. I don't recall if OS X comes with Python 2.4 by default. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. There is at least one reason: People running python2.3 must switch to python2.4 for Zope 2.9. That's somewhat painful, at least on Windows. AFAIK installing multiple Python versions on Windows isn't a problem. Plus, doesn't Zope 2 ship with its own Python anyways? I don't recall if OS X comes with Python 2.4 by default. Tiger ships with Python 2.3.5. However, compiling Python 2.4 from source is a piece of cake, let alone fink, darwinports or gentoo portage which provide the same kind of packaging capabilities to OSX as they do to Linux/Unix distributions. I haven't met a single developer who uses OSX and doesn't use at least one of those. And there's also MacPython which is a pointy-clicky installer for OSX; it's also available for Python 2.4, IIRC. Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On 1/16/06, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a fundamentally different way of developing and installing products. Therefore it's good to ask why we would want to expose such a fundamentally new feature for Zope 2.8. Do we really want to start explaining to people that My product is special, you need to install it like this, unlike what you're used to when what we're dealing with is not even the most recent stable release of Zope? You have a good point there. I think we can happily require Zope 2.9 for this functionality. If you are bleeding edge, you can be required to be so on all fronts. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Sidnei da Silva wrote: | On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So | | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. | | There is at least one reason: People running python2.3 must switch to | python2.4 for Zope 2.9. That's somewhat painful, at least on | Windows. | | AFAIK installing multiple Python versions on Windows isn't a problem. | Plus, doesn't Zope 2 ship with its own Python anyways? Yes, the issue is not installing python, but packaging Zope. People building installers for Windows have to have a MSVC 7 and there might be a significant amount of work involved on making all dependencies of those installers work on Python2.4. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Sidnei da Silva wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:12:46PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | Sidnei da Silva wrote: | On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:26:09PM +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: | | Then again, Zope 2.9 is stable (people don't really trust a .0 | | release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So | | there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess. | | There is at least one reason: People running python2.3 must switch to | python2.4 for Zope 2.9. That's somewhat painful, at least on | Windows. | | AFAIK installing multiple Python versions on Windows isn't a problem. | Plus, doesn't Zope 2 ship with its own Python anyways? Yes, the issue is not installing python, but packaging Zope. People building installers for Windows have to have a MSVC 7 and there might be a significant amount of work involved on making all dependencies of those installers work on Python2.4. True. Good point. But for how long do these people (I assume Enfold is one of them) plan to stick with Zope 2.8 then? I mean, they have to move forward at *some* point. Sure, it won't happen over night, but neither will Products-less packages in Zope 2... Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
