-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
>> ...
>>> backwards compatibility at all costs,
>> I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
>> That increased the overhead of changes tremendously a
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
> ...
>> backwards compatibility at all costs,
>
>I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
>That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and blocked innovation.
Large applications are built upon the framework.
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-3-3 17:21 +0900:
> ...
>How many times have we gotten bogged down in semantics or
>naming discussions and killed off the momentum behind something?
A clear notion of semantics and well chosen names are important
for any project.
I would not want momentum resulting in
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 00:36 +0100:
> ...
>* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
>disagree?
You try to achieve consensus. When you do not, you get the chance
that people turn away.
> ...
>* who reminds us of necessary tasks and directions we're going into?
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 19:00:12 schrieb Baiju M:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
> > entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
> > (which would be a distinct
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 17:48:37 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hi there,
>
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > And it is in any case in no way even remotely connected to the group
> > Martijn proposed and has been discussed in this thread.
>
> - Attracting newbies to web development is not a task
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 18:03:17 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> > Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
> > packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
> > there, it can say little.
>
> Which is exactly my poin
Hey Tres,
Could you repost this to a new thread as I think people aren't paying
attention to this thread very much anymore? I'd very much like to make
progress on actual cleanups now.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Paul Everitt wrote:
> [snip]
>> Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
>> point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
>> something small.
>
> It's
Hey everybody,
This thread is now closed, thanks everybody for your contributions!
See my unilateral announcement about the formation of the Steering Group
and Zope Framework. It do its best to try to balance the concerns in
this thread.
Regards,
Martijn
_
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:27, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> If it's impossible for these people to agree when discussing on this
>> mailing list today, why would the suddenly agree on this mailing list
>> if we call them The Zope Framework Steering Group? I really don't
>> understand that.
>
> Two ans
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Real soon now, zope.app.container and zope.app.folder and
> zope.app.keyreference and zope.app.catalog are not going to be the
> business of the Zope Framework developers anymore. They contain ZMI
> stuff the Zope Framework developers do no
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I believe to get success here (measured as gaining new Python developer
> users),
> our path forward needs to be way, way, way more radical and needs to involve
> making hard choices that treat individual packages on their own merit rather
> than even considering their rol
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>
>> * A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
>> a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
>> splitting up into individually packaged and released
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
> entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
> (which would be a distinct entity) would manage themselves and the Zope
> Framework steerin
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
>> this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
>> resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
>>
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
>> packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
>> there, it can say little.
>
> Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
> a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
> splitting up into individually packaged and released bits, we are forced
> to think about these things more.
(I'm running o
Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
>>> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a co
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
> this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
> resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
> is impacted by this decision.
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
> Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
> point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
> something small.
It's not small, as it has an impact on a lot of things that build on
zope.component. Cha
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
> packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
> there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I don't
see that it should be any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Andreas Jung wrote:
> [snip]
>> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
>> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
>> that the upco
Baiju M wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> [snip]
>> - I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
>> complete "programming experience". Thus there needs to be some integrating
>> force, that draws together all these packages, writes som
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
> And it is in any case in no way even remotely connected to the group
> Martijn proposed and has been discussed in this thread.
Of course it is connected. The Zope Framework needs leadership that can
help:
- bless efforts by individuals and subgroups tha
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
> This just seems like a blindingly obvious antigoal to actually breaking apart
> the software into more discrete bits using eggs. Why not just stick with a
> huge
> tarball release or one single egg if it all has to be versioned through time
> to
> 99% of its consu
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I don't agree the Zope Foundation board should directly steer
> development of the Zope software.
I totally agree.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development and Training
Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
> This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
> committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
> that the upcoming ZF board will have a good representation of each Zope
> project on the board in order to address thin
Hey there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
> 1) I'm not in favor of a single steering group for the *entirety* of all Zope
> software. We've tried a similar thing in the past (via the foundation
> structure); it didn't work and I'm not sure how we'd expect things to turn out
> any differently this time
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
> You can try to bake more leadership of the overall Zope community into
> this, but I think this is a fruitless fight right now. Reduce the scope,
> try make some things better and don't step on other peoples feet if you
> don't need to. For example don't
Gary Poster wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Hey Gary,
>>
>> [panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
>> compete for attention]
>
> [Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
I shouldn't have used that word, I actually didn't r
On 3/4/09 9:47 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
>>
>> On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
>> users, while
Hi Paul
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
>
> On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
> Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
> users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
> Everybody wins.
> Hopefully such
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
>> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
>> than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
>> you don't have. It's
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Paul Everitt wrote:
>
>> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
>> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
>> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
>> the tim
Paul Everitt wrote:
> When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
> convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
> desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
> the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
On 3/4/09 1:07 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
>> Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
>> trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:56, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>> > What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
>> > coordinated, which leads to the follow
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
> > coordinated, which leads to the following:
> > - How does some foreigner know, if a package is active
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
[snip]
> - I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
> complete "programming experience". Thus there needs to be some integrating
> force, that draws together all these packages, writes some documentation /
> tu
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 08:16:26 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
> > than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
> > you don't have. It's hea
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
> coordinated, which leads to the following:
>
> - How would these groups be formed? If there's nobody who encourages people to
> do so,
They will be formed by people
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 09:21, Chris McDonough wrote:
> To the extent we can discourage the formation of the
> one-big-group-to-rule-them-all by encouraging the formation of smaller
> groups, I
> think it's a good idea. But in reality, I think nothing needs to be done:
> group-forming will always
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
> than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
> you don't have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of
> the things I
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
>> than
>> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
>> have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 8:50 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>>> 2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
>>> between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
>>> this as
>>> conti
Andreas Jung wrote:
>> 2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
>> between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
>> this as
>> continuing our mistakes of old by trying to treat some collection of
>> software as
>> "Zope" as opposed t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
> have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the things I'm
> al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 7:52 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
> have. It's heartening to hear that you're
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the things I'm
also in favor of. But we do have real differences in opinion I
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
>
> Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
> trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
> from this point on, any
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> > We do have this system today.
> >
> > http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/waterfall
>
> Wow, great.
>
> Too bad about the failures. How are you announcing the failures ATM?
No, maybe someone can provide that service? ;-)
BTW, I have decided not to go a
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> FWIW, the only polish I'd love to see is static pages for past dev
> releases (or did I miss them?)
Well, it is a matter of version numbering, but all versions that have a unique
version number are listed here:
http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/
W
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
>> My mild counter proposal was this.
>>
>> - The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start "Zope"
>> projects
>>
>> - Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he
>> de
On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey Gary,
>
> [panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
> compete for attention]
[Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
> I agree that it should be relatively easy to start "Zope" projects
> under
> t
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Okay, I guess we do differ here. I think a leader can provide
> encouragement and stimulate people into action, point out interesting
> outstanding tasks, and make sure that people who are motivated actually
> get grip on improving the project and don't get discouraged.
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Different participants will report differently about the success, no
> doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
> "decisions" taken at the PSPS as "advisory", "just talk", etc: having
> no force in governing the more "tactical" decisions.
I don't know wh
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
from this point on, any package shared between repoze.bfg
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> It might be we are able to establish a "framework team" without
> elections by just picking out the bunch of people who are interested in
> this.
That's been the Plone approach to creating the "framework team". Some
people just decided to do it and didn't even bothered t
Hi there,
I thought I should highlight this characterization of the Zope project
because I agree with much of it but also disagree with much of it.
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the
> last
> 9 years (
9 years is a long time, an
Hi there,
Chris, I think you are misunderstanding my position quite
dramatically. Perhaps you should calm down and reconsider what I've
been saying, as I believe we're a lot closer than you seem to think.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
>> I'd rather have one underl
On 3/3/09 2:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> And you think it's all due to the brand...
>
> Yes! Someone who *wants* to use basic ZCML directives but doesn't want
> zope.security, zope.location, zope.publisher, zope.traversing, zope.i18n, and
> pytz can *already* use repoz
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> [snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of th
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 19:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Different participants will report differently about the success, no
> doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
> "decisions" taken at the PSPS as "advisory", "just talk", etc: having
> no force in governing the more "tactica
On 3 Mar 2009, at 18:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Ah, so Plone currently has long term direction as they think 2
> releases
> ahead of just one?
Plone 4 discussions are happening around now, there are demos of
suggested concepts and people generally working on the codebase.
Plone 5 is a l
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
>> (though I did hear positive news about it). I do have the
>> impression the framework team strategy works reasonably well; it's been
>> operating for about 2 releases now?
> It works as a way of sharing the load with the release manager. Because
> its members don't
Hi there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
>>> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
>>> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Paul Everitt wrote:
>> On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
>>> represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
>>> someone to think
Boy, there's no point in trying to outrun this thread, I'd better just
jump in here. Martin I think you said that very well and I'm convinced.
I appreciate and generally support Martijn's proposal. When in doubt,
I'd be in favour of emulating what's been shown to work in the Plone
community - eg
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
> Actually Martijn tried to be better than that. :-) Instead of just forming a
> steering group (which I would interpret as a Zope project) and announcing it
> to the community, he asked for feedback first. :-)
Thanks. :)
> I probably agree he should have jus
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start "Zope" projects under
the Zope umbrella.
I agree that such projects could compete for attention and may the best
one win.
I think this is w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
>> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
>> production application: I don't w
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
>> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
>> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
>> z
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 18:20, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I myself am inclined, for the Zope Framework, to start with the day to
> day team. I think it can deduce at least some long term directions from
> the community on the mailing list and usage in practice (also by
> consultation). We could amend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> [snip]
>> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
>> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
>> production application: I don't wan
Paul Everitt wrote:
> On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
>> represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
>> someone to think "big picture" in terms of what technologies we adopted
>> and how we used t
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
>> As much as I prefer discussing with people in real life, there is the
>> notion of "no backroom conversations" WRT to driving development of an
>> open source project.
>
> OK. *Cough*. You and Martijn wrote this proposal. And you asked
> Stephan about it
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
>> No. The steering group should not have backroom discussions. They should
>> act as open as possible. I think of it as a catalyst.
>
> The operative here is *should*. Compare that to *will*. These are
> different words. What the steering group *should* do
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
> somebody to bug people about bugs in the bug tracker. That should be
> one person, for example. Responsibilities need to be well defined and
> individual. There isn't anybody called Someone here, s
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> I'm not sure Plone's model fits Zope perfectly, but certainly there are
> some lessons to be learned. We also have some of processes and
> documentation already in place, having made a few mistakes along the way.
Definitely, I'm very interested in seeing
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
> zope.security dependency could benef
Christian Theune wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 02:35 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> * leadership could help sustain efforts like "we want the Zope Framework
>> to run on Jython" and make detailed decisions based on this. Nobody
>> right now can really decide on this.
>
> Anecdote: Our current
Paul Everitt wrote:
> On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
>> I'll chime in as a newbie.
>>
>> It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
>> come from "we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves"
>>
>> I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the propo
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> I think Martijn is trying to address something that Zope has lacked for
> a while. I don't think it'll solve all of the world's problems, nor do I
> think that Martijn things so, but it will make some things - things like
> this very debate - a bit easier
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> My mild counter proposal was this.
>
> - The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start "Zope"
> projects
>
> - Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he described
>
> - Hopefully, people follow it.
>
> In other words, I
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
> production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
> of eggs from PyPI, for instance, whi
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli
wrote:
> > If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
> > gaps we had to plug.
>
> Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
> process and as few
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
> production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
> of eggs from PyPI, for instance, which means
Chris Withers wrote:
> Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
>> next day. That's a nightmare.
>
> That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
> are done sensibly.
> (ie: if you're going to do a big backwards-incompa
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>
>
>>> - - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
>>> set is much smaller than either of the others?
>> Probably none. So having better depe
Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Plone, by the way, had a similar problem, and solved it by creating "the
>> framework team". This is a rolling body of people who are responsible
>> for putting out calls for and reviewing improvements proposals. They
>> basically report to the release manager, who makes t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> What is going to make us more effective is:
>>
>> * a recognition of current reality, i.e. the Zope Framework is not the
>> same as the Zope 3 application server and it serves a far wider audience.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
>> Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
>>> next day. That's a nightmare.
>> That shouldn't happen with individual package
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> The irony is that the proposed solution, organized leadership, is
> going to suffer the same fate as the aforementioned ideas. Everyone is
> putting in their oar, +1s and -1s are flying right, left and centre,
> and this idea is either going to die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> - - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
>> set is much smaller than either of the others?
>
> Probably none. So having better dependencies would obviously be good. I
> t
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
> Adam GROSZER wrote:
> > Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
> > next day. That's a nightmare.
>
> That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
> are done sensibly.
Let me tell you from exper
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - Show quoted text -
> On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
> I'll chime in as a newbie.
>
> It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
> come from "we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves"
>
> I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the proposal
> has potential to make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
Who is going to ma
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> > Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
>> > Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
