Re: [Zope-CMF] CMF vs. CMF.buildout

2010-08-05 Thread Charlie Clark
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

2010-08-05 Thread yuppie
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

2010-08-05 Thread Jens Vagelpohl
-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

2010-08-05 Thread yuppie
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

2010-08-05 Thread yuppie
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