Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Stephan Richter wrote: * We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buildbot. This is a very very good point... * I have a fear that people will be motivated to make Zope 3 changes to make them work better with Zope 2, inserting special code just for Zope 2. Another good point. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Lennart Regebro wrote: I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope 2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2 publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things. At that point, Zope2 will more or less be Zope3 + App, DateTime, OFS, Products and some other stuff. Then something more of a merge might make sense. This is a really really good point ;-) I think unification is probably a good idea, but not yet... Even so, I'd much prefer to see Z3 stay "light" of Zope 2 and just have Zope 2 become smaller and smaller as it leverages more and more of Zope 3. Put differently, I have no problem with the repositories merging, but I'd like to see the bits of Zope 3 seperately available, without Z2. I know ZPT and testbrowser already work like that, and the more that works like that the better... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*. I agree with the points your raise but I worry about the arrival of the pragmatists and making nasty botch jobs to help out some half broken code in Zope or Plone... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 05:36, Martijn Faassen wrote: > I don't think that threats to leave and portrayals of utter doom are a > fair way to discuss this, Stephan. I must say I find it extremely ironic > to hear from you that stalling Zope 3 for several months is a death blow > to Zope 3 -- where was this sentiment in the past? :) Note that I don't claim that my leaving would stall the development. I just use my case as an example. I always consider myself of someone, who accepts a very high bar for contributing. So, if I think the the bar is too high, my thinking goes, then others will also conceive it as too high and that causes the stalling. Everyone is replaceable, I have learned that in the US. But a certain group might not as easily be. > Like it or not, merging the repository or not, you'd better get used to > the fact that Zope 2 developers are here in your community and that they > will speak up to let their interests be known. It's in your interest to > make us happy, actually, as we're working to make Zope 3 a better > community and a better system. I know that The Zope 2 people are around. And I try to answer Five questions on the lsits and on IRC as good as I can. I also have nothing against hearing the interest of the Zope 2 community. But I am also in a position where I must protect the interests of the Zope-3-only community as well. And in *my* opinion, in this particular case the Zope 2 community has a lot to gain at the expense of the Zope-3-only community. I have outlined my arguments for that statement in the many E-mails before. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lennart Regebro wrote: > I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope > 2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2 > publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal > with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things. Exactly. In this case Zope2 will be a more a 'configuration' of Zope3. Well, I'm repeating my self here ... > > At that point, Zope2 will more or less be Zope3 + App, DateTime, OFS, > Products and some other stuff. Then something more of a merge might > make sense. > yup. This is my impression. This is too early... > Up until then, we have a functioning system now, and I'm guessing the > benefits will not outweigh the work. I can only agree with this on this. J. - -- Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France) CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org Zope3 / ECM : http://www.z3lab.org mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDhbZWGhoG8MxZ/pIRAjA5AJ9NdWa0lfhoPrngxVK7CV6ttSPqpACeM9Pk IXBQi5KCZotRxRoO+uJp/j0= =mZRW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 03:57, Roger Ineichen wrote: > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will > contribute more. I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 > development. This is a really good point. It is not that the Zope 2 community has a lot of developers to bring to the table. The Zope 2 community also struggles getting issues resolved and features implemented. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
I think this change can possibly make sense when we have replaced Zope 2 authentication with Zope 3s, and when we have replaces Zope 2 publisher with Zope 3s and when we have replaced the Zope 2 traversal with Zope3s, and maybe a couple of other things. At that point, Zope2 will more or less be Zope3 + App, DateTime, OFS, Products and some other stuff. Then something more of a merge might make sense. Up until then, we have a functioning system now, and I'm guessing the benefits will not outweigh the work. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 03:57, Roger Ineichen wrote: > > And if > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. > > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. Yep, I was implying that in my post. I will never want to depend on anyone when implementing a feature. I have been burned too often when asking others for help. Noone can guarantee help! (including me, Jim, Philipp, Time, Fred, or anyone else) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Can you read and potentially fix doctests? I *know* you can :). Tell me, > other than the fact that you keep saying you refuse to learn Five, makes > fixing a Five doctest different from a, say, zope.app.tree doctest? It's > not like you've modified a line here or there in other people's code before > which is why your particular dislike of Five surprises me. Yes. Because I worked very hard the last 3.5 years to have a very deep and fairly complete understanding of Zope 3. This is the reason I can fix doctests and bugs in almost every part of Zope 3. I do not want to spend time acquiring this skill in Five or Zope 2 (again). I have no motivation to do that. I have been a Zope 3 developer for over 3 years and I have worked very hard trying to make (some) money with Zope 3 when it was not easy to do so. Now that I have finally plenty of Zope 3 work, you come around and force me to learn Five and Zope 2 again, if I want to continue developing for Zope 3. And that's plain bullshit. The strong resistance of some of the other pure Zope 3 developers should give you a hint. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. > > You're over-irrationalizing here. We all know that the Zope 2 code > structure has flaws, but it's not like Zope 3 is perfect either. I don't > think clutter is a real problem here, so let's not make it one. It is opinion against opinion. This is a deadlock. I Am not going to reply anymore, because (a) it is Thanks Giving and I am going out of town and (b) I am just repeating myself anyways. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > > Why would it stall Zope 3 development? > > > > Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. > > You still haven't given me a good reason why we would actually *lose* > contributors. Because they will not bother contributing, if the prospect is that they have to fix Five things; something they have nothing to do with. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi [...] > > Martijn Faassen wrote: > > > ... > > Outside the Zope community Zope 3 doesn't have such a great image > > indeed. It's either ignored, or it's actively rejected. > There is a lot > > of competition with other frameworks. Zope 3 is currently not doing > > particularly well in this competition, something we need to > fix, but > > that's another topic for another thread. It doesn't change that > > inviting in the Zope 2 developers is most effective thing > we can do at > > present to grow the Zope 3 community. > > > > Regards, > > > > Martijn > > > Hi, > > It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology > and zope3 wants the zope2 community. > > I think the question about the technology should be treated > as such on a > technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common > repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, > collaborating on > common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 but > without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc). > > But the question about the communities involves more complicated > aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, > strategies, etc. > The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a higher > level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a > social contract > is agreed on. > > So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological > level even though lots of it can .. +1 for that Regards Roger Ineichen > Regards > /JM > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Stephan Richter wrote: [snip] So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in anticipation of more community involvement? This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. I don't think that threats to leave and portrayals of utter doom are a fair way to discuss this, Stephan. I must say I find it extremely ironic to hear from you that stalling Zope 3 for several months is a death blow to Zope 3 -- where was this sentiment in the past? :) Like it or not, merging the repository or not, you'd better get used to the fact that Zope 2 developers are here in your community and that they will speak up to let their interests be known. It's in your interest to make us happy, actually, as we're working to make Zope 3 a better community and a better system. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: > Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never > contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a > proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer > to decide. Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community! Really, I'm quite tired of trench wars like Zope 2 vs. Zope 3. Like Martijn said, we need to come together, not apart. I'm starting to get the feeling that some Zope 3 developers rather see Zope 2 die than embrace some of its experience and community. May I remember everyone again that we once said we'd do something about the transition (we even boldly called it "backward compatability" back then, but even I thought that this was quite too unrealistic). So far, nobody from Zope 3 has done anything in that direction, it's always been left to the Zope 2 people. Don't take me wrong, I'm not accusing, it naturally developed that way. But now that Zope 2 people want to join efforts, the Zope 3 developers close the gates under the excuse of saving their "early adoption" investment? > Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3 > develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it. I'm a Zope 3 developer. Martijn is too. Don't jump to premature conclusions :). Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest > > clue of how zope.wfmc works. > > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I > > refactor something, I might even > > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be > > very superficial. > > That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad > docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional > tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc. So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard. What's your point? That keeping Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a different quality of hardness? I don't think so. > I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a > hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework. Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me... > > And if > > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. > > That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope > and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot together on geddons. Just recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things related to zpkgutils. Let's not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are. > Btw, what's next. > Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core > only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise. You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to go into this point further. My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less. > Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five, > I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the > idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3 > core development. I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few risks, as I've laid them out in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities. > Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another > reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will > contribute more. I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first serious attempt, ignoring the two books out there *wink*. > I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that > a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development. Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people with strong Zope 2 background -- have given me the opposite impression. > Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3 > only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. Yes. > You draw the picture a little bit to easy. Perhaps. > I think if somebody will become a Zope3 > developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only > download the code. Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the kinda guy I want to address. He has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with Zope 2 and he sees several points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these points been at the tip of his fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3? Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter... Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Zope3 developers [...] > On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:41, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > At least no one is expecting to make such big changes by > yourself. Being > > stubborn and refusing to do further contributions, be they > large or small, > > isn't going to get us anywhere. The people who are so far > backing up this > > proposal have nothing but support to offer and you know that. > > I am as stubborn refusing this proposal as you are pushing > it. Right now there > are more -1 votes than +1 votes. Maybe it is time retract the > proposal? > Furthermore, I have yet to see contributions for Zope 3 from > people using > Five. We are not even getting bug reports. Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer to decide. Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3 develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it. Regards Roger Ineichen > Regards, > Stephan > -- > Stephan Richter > CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) > Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Philipp [...] > Stephan Richter wrote: > > I totally disagree. I, as a Zope 3 developer, have to learn > Zope 2 and Five. > > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest > clue of how zope.wfmc works. > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I > refactor something, I might even > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be > very superficial. That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad docstrings, you will break the zope.app.apidoc package functional tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc. I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework. > And if > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch. That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope and ask others for fixes. This whon't work. Btw, what's next. Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise. Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five, I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3 core development. Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will contribute more. I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development. Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3 only because the code lives in the same repsoitory. You draw the picture a little bit to easy. I think if somebody will become a Zope3 developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only download the code. Regards Roger Ineichen > It's been this way for years now, there's no compelling > reason why it should change. > > Philipp > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Stephan Richter wrote: > On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:25, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > Quoting Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > This would be Zope 3's death blow > > > as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. > > > > Why would it stall Zope 3 development? > > Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. You still haven't given me a good reason why we would actually *lose* contributors. > > > Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. > > > > The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' > > package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As > > for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all > > want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being > > integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. > > For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. You're over-irrationalizing here. We all know that the Zope 2 code structure has flaws, but it's not like Zope 3 is perfect either. I don't think clutter is a real problem here, so let's not make it one. > > * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope > > 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no > > horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be > > joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done > > so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). > > I know there will be frequent failures. This is unavoidable. Take this > scenario. I often work on SchoolTool. When working on SchoolTool, I am also > working with a writable Zope 3 trunk checkout. I now find a bug in Zope 3 > (which I frequently do). I fix the bug in Zope 3, write a test, test the fix > with SchoolTool and I am ready to check in. If I now get a failure in Zope 3 > due to Five (which I do not know and do not want to learn), I rather work > around the bug, instead of checking in a fix, since that is less overhead. > One contribution lost. Can you read and potentially fix doctests? I *know* you can :). Tell me, other than the fact that you keep saying you refuse to learn Five, makes fixing a Five doctest different from a, say, zope.app.tree doctest? It's not like you've modified a line here or there in other people's code before which is why your particular dislike of Five surprises me. > More cons: > > * One very substantial risk is the understanding of Zope 3 newcomers. I just > sprinted with/mentored Paul Cardune (main developer of CanDo) this week and > he tries diligently to learn Zope 3. They are also using the Zope 3 trunk, so > they can immediately profit from the new features and make transitions > easier. If the trunk becomes even larger, then the chance for Paul to see > what fits together how becomes even larger. I'm sure that Zope 3 newcomers can live with the fact to only use stuff from the 'zope' package. We've always said a repository checkout looks different and contains more than a distribution. If you use it, newcomer or not, don't complain about the additional stuff... And again, it's not like Zope 3 doesn't have additional stuff right now and it hasn't stopped Paul, has it. > * We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we > blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and > bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level > dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buildbot. You'd be surprised, I agree. Zope 2 is different from zwiki and bugtracker, though. Zope 2 is tightly linked to Zope 3 now, technology-wise and, much much more importantly, release scheduling-wise. To quote Steve Alexander: "You're comparing apples to an entire fruit salad served with cream." :) > * I have a fear that people will be motivated to make Zope 3 changes to make > them work better with Zope 2, inserting special code just for Zope 2. At least I expect code to be refactored to ease its reuse in Zope 2. This is one of the explicit goals mentioned in this proposal. I can take Florent's case as an example again. He got in touch with object events through the Zope 2 integration and he's now proposing a bugfix of that in Zope 3. Sure, his objective is making it work better in Zope 2. But seldomly a change like that would count as "special code just for Zope 2". Also, good use cases have never prevented us from checking in any code. If that use case happens to occur in Zope 2 and *not* in Zope 3, so be it. It's still a use case, and it's not like it wouldn't find its way into Zope 3 in the long run; my point is to make it easy to do so. > That would be about the worst case scenario I could imagine. Right now it is > much > easier to oversee the quality of Zope 3 and monitor the checkins. Once a > merge happens, the control will get lost. I just
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Thursday 24 November 2005 00:25, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Quoting Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This would be Zope 3's death blow > > as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. > > Why would it stall Zope 3 development? Because you would immediately loose a bunch of contributors. > > Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. > > The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' > package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As > for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all > want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being > integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. For me, anything that adds code to the file structure is clutter. Period. > Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to > think hard about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed > out in the proposal ) are: > > * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer. Sure. > * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope > 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no > horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be > joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done > so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). I know there will be frequent failures. This is unavoidable. Take this scenario. I often work on SchoolTool. When working on SchoolTool, I am also working with a writable Zope 3 trunk checkout. I now find a bug in Zope 3 (which I frequently do). I fix the bug in Zope 3, write a test, test the fix with SchoolTool and I am ready to check in. If I now get a failure in Zope 3 due to Five (which I do not know and do not want to learn), I rather work around the bug, instead of checking in a fix, since that is less overhead. One contribution lost. More cons: * One very substantial risk is the understanding of Zope 3 newcomers. I just sprinted with/mentored Paul Cardune (main developer of CanDo) this week and he tries diligently to learn Zope 3. They are also using the Zope 3 trunk, so they can immediately profit from the new features and make transitions easier. If the trunk becomes even larger, then the chance for Paul to see what fits together how becomes even larger. * We have been constantly trying to make the trunk smaller, and suddenly we blow it up? This does not fit. In fact, I would claim that zwiki and bugtracker should now be moved out of the trunk and placed into top-level dirs themselves. They should be tested using the buildbot. * I have a fear that people will be motivated to make Zope 3 changes to make them work better with Zope 2, inserting special code just for Zope 2. That would be about the worst case scenario I could imagine. Right now it is much easier to oversee the quality of Zope 3 and monitor the checkins. Once a merge happens, the control will get lost. I just do not have time to read Zope 2 checkins. I could come up with more, but I am too tired to think. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Quoting Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > > I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting > > features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 > > because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe > > you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features > > you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development > > base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine > > efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level > > stuff in their own projects. > > So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in > anticipation of more community involvement? I think you're exaggerating here. No one would give up Zope 3 because the repository has a few extra packages laying around. > This would be Zope 3's death blow > as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Why would it stall Zope 3 development? > Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' package will continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other packages, I didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point or another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in the 'zope' package. > > Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 > > code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of > > course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of > > the proposal *wink*. > > You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all > honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers > too much. Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to think hard about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed out in the proposal ) are: * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer. * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 technology are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for the 1% case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help to you for such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so this isn't new). Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting > features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 > because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe > you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features > you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development > base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine > efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level > stuff in their own projects. So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in anticipation of more community involvement? This would be Zope 3's death blow as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months. Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean. > Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 > code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of > course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of > the proposal *wink*. You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers too much. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Roger Ineichen wrote: > Reading the response to this mail, I guess developer > working on existing Zope2 projects agree on this proposal. > > And developer where build projects only based on Zope3 > will not. > > As somebody how don't know Zope2 I'm -1 on this. I could repeat here what Martijn and I wrote in response to Stephan... I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2 because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level stuff in their own projects. Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2 code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of the proposal *wink*. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source coderepository
Hi Philipp [...] > Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at: > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeR > epository Yes, you are right this sounds crazy. Reading the response to this mail, I guess developer working on existing Zope2 projects agree on this proposal. And developer where build projects only based on Zope3 will not. As somebody how don't know Zope2 I'm -1 on this. Regards Roger Ineichen > Philipp > > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/dev%40projekt01.ch > > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
