On 3/3/06, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Max M wrote:
> > Splitting up Zope to let people use seperate pieces of Zope aka Zed
> > is not a valid reason. Good software practise is a valid reason.
> > But catering for those few developers that wants to use j
Am 02.03.2006 um 14:13 schrieb Rocky Burt:
On Tue, 2006-28-02 at 13:21 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little
easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace
package
could e
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 07:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I don't see how we need a new vision. This has been the vision
> (evolution, not revolution) that I've been carrying out with Five for
> the last few years and thanks to a lot of contributions by a large range
> of developers, we've been m
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
I would vote for spelling out Zed (which would also be a little easier
to google but might create trademark problems). The namespace package
could either be 'z' or 'zed'.
Then again, I really should take Jim's side and stay out of
