On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on
Zope 2.
A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2
shouldn't be merged in with Zope 3 ;-)
Actually, yes, all of my points were made to that
Gary Poster wrote:
Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2.
A very good point, but one which makes me feel that Zope 2 shouldn't be
merged in with Zope 3 ;-)
Put differently, if we're merging in Zope 2 into the repository, then
why not SchoolTool, or any of the
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Cool to hear you're giving Five related talks. Is there any description
> of these available online? (not that it's likely I'll be able to attend
> PyCon, but I'm very curious)
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Talks
They're
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
Me too.
PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity
for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet:
http://wi
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:03:35PM +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > I'd love to participate in some sprints on these.
>
> Me too.
PyCon Dallas 2006 is only 3 months away and would be a great opportunity
for such sprints. There's nothing about Zope here yet:
http://wiki.python.org/moin
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:42 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote:
- There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the
Z3 community to backwards compatibility as
there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where
he says "I have made d
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I
remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five
in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase.
I was one of
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I
remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of
Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its
codebase.
I was one of these people. Since the
Jim Fulton wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
...
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style.
Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
...
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just inert
code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style.
Hee hee. And they believed it? Do they wanna buy a bridge
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Sounds crazy, I know. But I'm serious. Looking for your comments at:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReuniteZope2AndZope3InTheSourceCodeRepository
I am -1. If I could I would veto
On Thursday 24 November 2005 01:39, Chris McDonough wrote:
> - There doesn't seem to be as much of a commitment in the
> Z3 community to backwards compatibility as
> there is for Z2. Notes like Stephan's last one where
> he says "I have made deep changes in the past that affect
> the entir
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no
> matter what happens.
Chris, I won't bother you with a detailed answer (esp. to some points that were
not quite
correct about Zope 3 not caring about backward compat). I just wanted to say
that I also
r
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 04:56 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> I think Martin Aspeli is not the only one who still has no clue on how to
> move forward
> beyond a certain Fivization of his Zope 2 products. If you do, then that's
> great, but I
> don't think everyone is in that fortunate si
On 11/23/05, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using this group, we have about an 80-90%
> -1 vote count.
I'll weigh in with a -1 as well, for all the reasons cited by the
other -1 voters on this issue. Zope 2 and Zope 3 are far too
different at this point. The only way I see for conv
--On 24. November 2005 07:09:00 +0100 "Morten W. Petersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are not even getting bug reports.
Likely because Zope 3 *just-works* :-)
-aj
pgpC8hG89OHHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Z
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:14, Gary Poster wrote:
> The question here is effectively whether all Zope 3 developers must
> become Zope 'Five' developers. As you said, Zope 2 developers can
> choose to proceed essentially unaffected. Zope 3 devs could not.
Amen.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Ste
While I don't agree with the +1 voters, I understand and appreciate
their arguments. That said...
On Nov 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
inert cod
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 18:49, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> People keep telling Zope2 developers that the inclusion of Zope3
> doesn't mean you have to touch it, if you don't use it it is just
> inert code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development
> style. Ok, I accept that, no p
19 matches
Mail list logo
