Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I agree with everything except:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 23:30, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Goal 2: We want users to use the ZTK instead of the Zope 3.4 KGS.
>
> I don't agree with this statement. What we want is that the Zope 3 KGS
> becomes based on the ZTK KGS. After
I agree with everything except:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 23:30, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Goal 2: We want users to use the ZTK instead of the Zope 3.4 KGS.
I don't agree with this statement. What we want is that the Zope 3 KGS
becomes based on the ZTK KGS. After that happens, people might realize
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Assuming ZTK x.y won't have zope.app packages, this means that those
> upgrading to Zope 2.13 might be helped by a list of working versions of
> those zope.app.* packages (such as the one in zopeapp), or am I wrong?
> Of course I imagine th
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip explanation of current Zope 2 and Plone plans, thanks]
> So the two main upgrade paths we have are Zope 3.3.2 to ZTK 0.5. And
> then at some point in maybe 12 to 18 months a ZTK 0.5 to ZTK x.y
> upgrade. This also means that an actual ZTK release, that is done
> anywh
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Not really. Zope 2.12 is exactly that transitionary release defining a
>> KGS for everything that was included in Zope 2.11 (~3.4.1).
>
> Ah, I didn't realize Zope 2.12 was already based on an earlier version
>
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> I think a zopeapp KGS that will help them transition existing code from
>> Zope 2.12 to Zope 2.13 in working condition would be helpful to Zope 2
>> users.
>
> Not really. Zope 2.12 is exactly that transition
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> I think a zopeapp KGS that will help them transition existing code from
> Zope 2.12 to Zope 2.13 in working condition would be helpful to Zope 2
> users.
Not really. Zope 2.12 is exactly that transitionary release defining a
KGS for every
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> We have three perspectives:
>
> * the ZTK is new, therefore the ZTK doesn't need to care about Zope 3 at
> all.
+1
> * the ZTK is a renamed, refocused Zope 3, therefore the ZTK needs to
> care about Zope 3.
- -1
> * bot
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * the ZTK is new, therefore the ZTK doesn't need to care about Zope 3 at
> all.
I'm strongly in this camp. The other camps can readily be supported
on top of this view of the ZTK by providing new names for higher-level
toolkits and applic
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
>> The ZTK cannot be an excuse to just drop support for a large part of the
>> existing users of the ZTK. It's a *means* to do so.
>
> What existing users does the ZTK have?
I'll rewrite that:
The ZTK cannot be an excuse to just drop support f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> But right now we need to provide some guidance for how people can move
>> away from these packages in a sane manner. And we should make sure we
>> continue to test the z
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> And let's please not turn this around: I'm not putting anything *in*.
>>> Something was *removed*. Let's remove it responsibly. Not ju
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
> What difference would there be between a zopeapp KGS and a Zope3 KGS?
Not much. More sharing between Grok, Zope 3 and Zope 2? Explicitly aimed
at supporting backwards compatibility and upgrade path only?
We've been maintaining something close to a zopeapp KGS with
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> You need to identify whose ox is being gored here by dropping those
> packages: I don't see anybody but you arguing for their inclusion. In
> particular, I don't see anybody who knows *which* zope.app packages they
> need, and has a credible argument for why thos
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 23:11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I'm looking at this from the perspective of the discontinuity we will
> introduce for existing users of the libraries that are now in the Zope
> Toolkit but were formerly presented as Zope 3, and the guidance we offer
> for people to move ont
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> But right now we need to provide some guidance for how people can move
>> away from these packages in a sane manner. And we should make sure we
>> continue to test the zope.app.* packages when we make ZTK changes, fo
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> Who is upgrading? There are not historical users of the ZTK, only users
> of package sets with greater or lesser intersections with the ZTK.
[snip]
> You are acting like we have code in the wild which needs to upgrade from
> some released version of the ZTK
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> And let's please not turn this around: I'm not putting anything *in*.
>> Something was *removed*. Let's remove it responsibly. Not just disclaim
>> responsibility and drop it all.
>
> So far I defined the ZTK
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> But right now we need to provide some guidance for how people can move
> away from these packages in a sane manner. And we should make sure we
> continue to test the zope.app.* packages when we make ZTK changes, for
> the time being.
>
> Le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> I don't think "the ZTK" as defined by the historical constraints under
>> discussion here has much attraction for a large number of folks who are
>> otherwise willing to put effort into maintaining Z
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> [snip]
>> You are ignoring my point though: why should the ZTK have to be burdened
>> with trying to be backwards compatible with something that it never was?
>> Why are you insisting on putting Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dep
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> It seems that you want to have a 'ZTK+' which aims to be backwards
>> compatible with Zope 3 but is somehow not Zope 3 itself. That is
>> something that not everybody appears to be interested in judging by the
>> lack
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> And let's please not turn this around: I'm not putting anything *in*.
> Something was *removed*. Let's remove it responsibly. Not just disclaim
> responsibility and drop it all.
So far I defined the ZTK based on what we wrote on
http://doc
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I don't think "the ZTK" as defined by the historical constraints under
> discussion here has much attraction for a large number of folks who are
> otherwise willing to put effort into maintaining Zope packages.
>
> For these folks, any reduction in number of dependencies
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
> You are ignoring my point though: why should the ZTK have to be burdened
> with trying to be backwards compatible with something that it never was?
> Why are you insisting on putting Zope3 in it?
We should not remove it until we have a good way to upgrade people
I don't think "the ZTK" as defined by the historical constraints under
discussion here has much attraction for a large number of folks who are
otherwise willing to put effort into maintaining Zope packages.
For these folks, any reduction in number of dependencies and test maintenance
is a net w
On 12/29/09 17:00 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner d
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It seems that you want to have a 'ZTK+' which aims to be backwards
> compatible with Zope 3 but is somehow not Zope 3 itself. That is
> something that not everybody appears to be interested in judging by the
> lack of progress on Zope 3 i
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dependencies.
>
> I feel a disconnect here. As I
On 12/29/09 16:39 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dependencies.
>
> I feel a dis
On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dependencies.
I feel a disconnect here. As I see it the ZTK is not a 'leaner,
32 matches
Mail list logo
