Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 end--so AFAICT you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. :-) Gary ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 other projects that _use_ Zope 3? Zope 2 devs don't have to touch Zope 3 unless they want to leverage some cool new feature--in which case they are Zope Five devs, probably. Zope 3 devs must touch Zope 2, in this new world order, whether they want to or not, when changes break the stuff that Zope 2 has leveraged. I don't agree. Again, if Zope 3 changes break SchoolTool, is that a Zope 3 developer problem or a SchoolTool problem? FOrcing the maintenance of Zope 2 onto the already overloaded Zope 3 devs seems a little unfair... 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. And this for me, means that even if the repos merge, so evil svn:externals can be avoided, the tests should not be run together on the Zope 3 side, and "Zope 3" should come bundled with Zope 2, even if Zope 2 comes bundled with Zope 3 and Five! cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 just basic "How to develop with Zope" and "...CMF" talks, with as much Five as I can squeeze in since it's 2006 and it would be criminal to ignore it :-) I will not even remotely attempt to be comprehensive or deep. It will be very challenging to work in the short time slots alotted! I was a bit surprised that both talks were accepted, I figured I'd be trumped by presentations from better-known people, but maybe there weren't any! -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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://wiki.python.org/moin/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2. That'd be really cool. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. 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) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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/PyCon2006/Sprints I plan to attend and I would really love to sprint on further "fivification" of zope 2. p.s. No, I can't volunteer to do any coordination work for this. I'll already have plenty to do preparing for my two (Five-related) talks. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 deep changes in the past that affect the entire architecture" as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. That's good! But maybe you can clarify. You said in response to Phillipp's proposal that you needed to make deep changes to Zope 3 in the past and if the Z2 repository was merged you would be unwilling to make such contributions again. The implication seems to be that being able to change the codebase without regard to its external dependents is one of your main requirements for Z3 contribution. Is that not what you meant? - C ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. It makes me happy to hear that. Thanks! Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. - C ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 wanna buy a bridge? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. 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. The arguments against this were: * there's a lively development community around Five, don't worry * Five has a minimal impact on Zope 2; Zope 2 sources itself weren't changing. Both were true. I don't think it was claimed that your development style wouldn't be affected, as obviously we hope people will actually *use* Five in Zope 2 development. With Zope 2.9, this story is starting to change, as Zope 3 technology is making it deeper into Zope 2. Then again, I think the people who worried then have been becoming more familiar with Five since then, so hopefully appreciate it more now as a feature, not just as a potential maintenance burden. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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? ;) This is an age old argument made when someone wants to add a new feature to a development system. It is patently false. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 this proposal. Here is why: To be totally honest, I really, really don't care about Zope 2! I'll debate with you this reason. I don't think that this changes your dislike of merging the repositories and this argument is on a side-track and not intended to convince you of this. What my point is here is that your attitude about Zope 2 is wrong: as a pure-play Zope 3 developer you *should* care about Zope 2. Some of us have been doing quite a bit of work of bringing Zope 3 to the Zope 2 world. I believe that at least partially as a result of this, Zope 3 is getting a lot more attention from Zope 2 developers. I think that this attention is extremely valuable to the Zope 3 project. There is an awful lot of experience, skills and knowledge in the Zope 2 world that is immensely valuable to Zope 3 developers. We *don't* have a full respresentation of these extremely valuable perspectives in the Zope 3 development community right now. If Zope 2 developers get the impression that core Zope 3 developers don't give a shit about Zope 2, they may not be so likely to actually come on board. That would be a disastrous development indeed. We really need an increased connection between the Zope 2 world and the Zope 3 world. +100 Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 entire architecture" as if this may happen again at > any time are pretty scary. Except that I have provided full backward-compatibility. 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 really, really appreciate your taking time to write this post. You're exactly the kinda guy my proposal is addressing: Lots of Zope 2 experience on dead serious sites, lots of ideas on how to improve certain things in Zope 3, but no or little opportunity so far to get your hands dirty. 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 situation. I really, really appreciate Phil taking the time to propose this no matter what happens. But I don't have much of a dog in this fight either way. If the SVN merge happened, that'd be ok with me; if it didn't, that'd be ok too. I'd personally be more likely to contribute to Z3 if it did happen, but given the extent of my recent contributions to Z2 (minimal lately), that may not be such a win for anybody. So I'm +0 on the idea. If it did happen, I'd do my best to help solve Five test failures caused by reasonable Z3 changes. All that said, because I think it may be valuable to somebody, I'll try to provide a perspective about convergence from someone who: - Is a long-time Z2 developer. - Works with Z2 more or less exclusively. - Does more paid work than volunteer work on Z2. (e.g. it's largely just business now, not a passion). This will be pretty long. ;-) As opposed to about 8 months ago, I'm not in a position anymore where I have zero clue about Zope 3. That said, any cluefulness that I have about Zope 3 stuff has come largely as a result of using Five for customer projects. So I'm still pretty clueless about huge swathes of Z3. I'd of course like to be less clueless. I do most of my learning "on the job", so in order to really begin to use Z3 in anger, I'll need to use it for paid work. But it's unlikely that I can port *existing* Z2 customer projects over to "pure" Zope 3 if only because I really can't ethically charge someone to do that, nor do people really want to pay for it even if I could. It's great to be able to use Five to gradually use Z3 things but they'll never be "Z3-only" apps. They work just fine now under Z2 and will for a few more years at least. There's just no reason to port them. Of course it's possible that some future customer apps will be Z3 apps. That said, most of the work I get these days is in one of the following categories: - We have a slow Zope 2 application, please make it faster. - We are Zope 2 developers and we need some help on a specific piece of a project. These projects are often not good Z3 candidates for the same "don't fix it if it aint broke" reasons I mention above about existing customer projects. However, when "new" work comes in where it's simply in the form of a set of requirements rather than an already-running code base, I can of course choose to use Z3. These kinds of opportunities have presented themselves a few times in the last year or so. But I have to admit that each time one has, I've decided to stick with Z2 because not doing so would mean reimplementing (or at least porting) a lot of stuff that I know already exists for Z2 but which either has no Z3 analogue or at least has no Z3 analogue that I could personally vouch for without doing a lot of research. It's not really *major* stuff... cache managers, database adapters, transactional mail host tools, active directory connectors, heavy production sessioning requirements, blah blah blah. Any one of which could probably be researched in a day and coded up in less than another day. But it's a day and a half that I'd need to bill the customer for. Those days add up. And I like getting repeat business, so I try to keep customers happy by not taking them down ideological rabbit holes. Of course, there's a market bias here. I get more Z2 work because I've been doing Z2 work for a long time. I'm also currently much more valuable as a Z2 developer for the same reason. as As a Z3 book author, Stephan likely gets offers for work involving Z3 more than he does for work involving Z2. So it's easy to get tunnel-vision on both sides. Some observations that may be due to tunnel-vision that lead me away from developing "pure" Z3 apps: - 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 entire architecture" as if this may happen again at any time are pretty scary. It seems to imply that Z3 is still in an alpha phase. I know *the software* isn't but if this sort of deep changes are still deemed necessary, the design appears to be, which makes it almost completely uninteresting to use for production systems. Z2, for all its other failings, makes deep commitments about backwards compatibility. This shackles it in many respects but it also makes it an attractive development platform for people who are concerned about just getting the job done and having their software work over a long period of time across major releases. - Z3 has naive or non-battle-tested implementations of ke
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 convergence to be a good thing is for Zope 2 to be essentially skin and configuration on top of Zope 3; I really don't want to end up with Zope 2. Jim's vision is strongly for convergence, and I'm sure he'll say that himself when he's back (he's away for a few days). I don't pretend to know what he'll say about this idea, though. I don't *think* he think's it's time, but he doesn't like people predicting what he'll say. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "There is no wealth but life." --John Ruskin ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
--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 Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 -- 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 code that won't cause any change in your Zope2 development style. Ok, I accept that, no problem at all. But why should this be any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. ...this is not true. Zope 2 depends on Zope 3, via Five. Zope 3 does not depend on Zope 2. Therefore, making a change in Zope 2 cannot affect functionality in the slightest, let alone break a test, in Zope 3. The same cannot be said of the reverse. Zope 2 devs don't have to touch Zope 3 unless they want to leverage some cool new feature--in which case they are Zope Five devs, probably. Zope 3 devs must touch Zope 2, in this new world order, whether they want to or not, when changes break the stuff that Zope 2 has leveraged. To grant a point to Philipp's argument, it's possible that changes that break Zope 2 are non-backwards-compatible changes in Zope 3 that should have been caught. But consider this story: a Zope 3 dev changes something and deprecates an API. As part of the dev's responsibility, the checkin also makes all code in Zope 3 use the replacement API. Now Zope 2 works, but is generating deprecation warnings whenever the deprecated API is called. Is it the Zope 3 dev's responsibility to change Zope 2 to eliminate the deprecation warnings? What about in the following release when the old Zope 3 API is eliminated--whose responsibility is it then to fix Zope 2? If you view Zope 2 as a downstream client of Zope 3, you probably give one answer; if you view the two projects as a mingled whole, you probably give another. 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. Gary ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
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 problem at all. But why should this be > any different for Zope3 developers, obviously including Zope2 code > would mean exactly the same thing for them. Come on now. Personally, I have never advocated inserting Zope 3 into Zope 2. Some people really wanted Zope 3 in Zope 2, so that they could use the new technology. So they added it. That's fine by me. But if they then turn around and say, "Look we have Zope 3 in Zope 2, so you should also have Zope 2 in Zope 3.", then I am complaining loudly, because I do not want to have anything to do with Zope 2. And it just means that I am becoming a Zope 2 developer again. Forget that! I'd rather fork Zope 3, then work on a version that has Zope 2 in it. It is just too much overhead for me to know all the involved technologies (Zope 2 and Five). I have barely time to keep up with Zope 3 and stay on top of it. 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
