Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-08 Thread Martijn Faassen
Chris Withers wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal, I think we'd be fine with Zope Framework, and Zope 2. We certainly don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant. Zope Framework (and maybe even ZF4) seems to have

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-08 Thread Chris Withers
Martijn Faassen wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Gary Poster wrote: Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal, I think we'd be fine with Zope Framework, and Zope 2. We certainly don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant. Zope Framework (and maybe

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Dieter Maurer
Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 21:29 +0100: Andreas Jung wrote: Andrew others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the related subprojects. The current zope.org site

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dieter Maurer wrote: Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 21:29 +0100: Andreas Jung wrote: Andrew others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 08:32, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote: Because members put there content (product implementations) still usable? Absolutely right. In the long run that should probably be moved over to PyPI though. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista.

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lennart Regebro wrote: On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 08:32, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote: Because members put there content (product implementations) still usable? Absolutely right. In the long run that should probably be moved over to PyPI

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 17:23, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: PyPI won't work for non-eggified products. Right, so they need to be eggified then, which is a Good Thing. :) I'm not saying they should be moved *now*. Just in the long run. If the product is still maintained and cared

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-05 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tres Seaver wrote: Lennart Regebro wrote: On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 08:32, Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de wrote: Because members put there content (product implementations) still usable? Absolutely right. In the long run that should probably be

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-03 Thread Chris Withers
Gary Poster wrote: Within the constraints above, then, in line with your original proposal, I think we'd be fine with Zope Framework, and Zope 2. We certainly don't need Zope-3-the-tarball, if that's what you meant. Zope Framework (and maybe even ZF4) seems to have general agreement.

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Jim Fulton
On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Chris Withers wrote: Remember this: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/04/01/parrot.htm Well, that lead to this: http://www.parrot.org/ One of the reasons I got suckered into replying was that I thought this might be the result of some stuff a few of us had

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: What Martijn has announced and is already being worked on extensively. - Zope A 4.0 What was to be Zope 2.12 - Zope B 4.0 Whatever the next pending release of the Zope 3 appserver stuff was to be. (Need to keep the Canonical and ZC guys happy afterall ;-) )

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Jim Fulton
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Chris Withers wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: What Martijn has announced and is already being worked on extensively. - Zope A 4.0 What was to be Zope 2.12 - Zope B 4.0 Whatever the next pending release of the Zope 3 appserver stuff was to be. (Need to keep

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: We and canonical use the Zope Framework. We don't use an application. Zope (aka Zope 2) is an extensible application. We (ZC and Canonical and others) assemble components from the Zope Framework to build our own applications. Hmm, maybe I got this wrong, but Gary

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02.04.2009 22:17 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote: I'd *really* like to see the majority of the current www.zope.org simply eradicated from existence. It's out of date and a source of nothing but confusion. Andrew others have been working on this

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Andrew others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the related subprojects. The current zope.org site should be moved to old.zope.org (it must

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02.04.2009 22:29 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: Andrew others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: Because we can't break existing download URL - neither to old Zope releases I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org... nor to old product releases. I wonder how many of these are actually safe

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org... *shrug* I don't care if those releases on the new zope2.zope.org Please not zope2.zope.org, the insane version naming has *got* to stop... microsite or

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02.04.2009 22:45 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org... *shrug* I don't care if those releases on the new

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Chris Withers
Andreas Jung wrote: We might discuss this unhurriedly. To sleep and being in vacation mood in order to discuss this now :-) At least the term 'classic' is a NO-GO for me. Why? Would you prefer 'a' or maybe 'old'? ;-) microsite or somewhere else. The point is that the release should remain

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

2009-04-02 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02.04.2009 22:52 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: We might discuss this unhurriedly. To sleep and being in vacation mood in order to discuss this now :-) At least the term 'classic' is a NO-GO for me. Why? Would you prefer 'a'