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 buil
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, Zope
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 t
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 -- wh
-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
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 go
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 Zo
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 w
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
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
> thin
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 bot
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
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.
At th
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 t
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 co
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!
Re
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 superficia
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
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 someth
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
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 lo
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
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
> y
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
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 agr
24 matches
Mail list logo
