Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout
Am 05.08.2010, 15:07 Uhr, schrieb yuppie y.2...@wcm-solutions.de: Any thoughts? I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up, I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't it? Apart from the history that is. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout
Hi! Charlie Clark wrote: I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up, I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't it? Apart from the history that is. Well. It has svn:externals for the CMF Products, similar to CMF.buildout. I would not change or delete HISTORY.txt. AFAICS these things in CMF/trunk can be deleted: - 'docs' (ancient docs) - 'functest' (ancient functional tests) - RELEASE.txt and slurp_release.py (used for abandoned tarball releases) - CHANGES.txt, EXTERNALS.txt and __init__.py And these files might still contain some useful information, but need to be cleaned up: - INSTALL.txt and INSTALL_SVN.txt - README.txt Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/5/10 16:52 , yuppie wrote: Charlie Clark wrote: I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up, I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't it? Apart from the history that is. And these files might still contain some useful information, but need to be cleaned up: - INSTALL.txt and INSTALL_SVN.txt - README.txt Hi Yuppie, You do realize if you're trying to create one supported buildout for developers and end users there's a new support burden to shoulder. CMF.buildout was explicitly billed as a developer convenience. What's it going to be for a central CMF package? jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkxa0oIACgkQRAx5nvEhZLIyfACgtbWmxNwIEeF/yHOO6+MOFlVj t08An3Yyo1/zSF4Zjm+MNxdEosmeoBPG =atcK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout
Hi! Jens Vagelpohl wrote: On 8/5/10 16:52 , yuppie wrote: Charlie Clark wrote: I'm actively abstaining as while I understand the need to clean things up, I'm not sure I understand the whole context (my lack of understanding rather than any lack of explanation). CMF is actually empty, isn't it? Apart from the history that is. And these files might still contain some useful information, but need to be cleaned up: - INSTALL.txt and INSTALL_SVN.txt - README.txt Hi Yuppie, You do realize if you're trying to create one supported buildout for developers and end users there's a new support burden to shoulder. CMF.buildout was explicitly billed as a developer convenience. What's it going to be for a central CMF package? What do you mean by central CMF package? svn.zope.org/CMF was never a real Python package. It was a container for all the CMF Products as well as for developer tools, developer documents and some end user documents. I think INSTALL.txt and README.txt could make the focus on developers explicit. I can't see any additional burden caused by the proposed change. Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout
Hi Jens! Jens Vagelpohl wrote: I can't see any additional burden caused by the proposed change. The burden will appear when people are told or get the impression that the package represents the official sanctioned buildout for the CMF as opposed to being a developer convenience :-) It's a matter of communication. Think of someone who doesn't have a clue and sees a package named CMF. What are they going to think? I guess they will think exactly the same as they think right now if they see the package named CMF.buildout. If they have no clue, the .buildout will make no difference for them. CMF.buildout sounds like it would be the official sanctioned buildout for the CMF. How should they know it is a developer convenience? Cheers, Yuppie ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests