Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Andrew Milton wrote: +---[ Stephan Richter ]-- | Hello everyone, | | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start | using the process for third party package development. | | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments | about it! So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then check it into the svn respository. Is this is correct? No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree. I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it. I'm therefore still suggesting to divide up the proposal. +1 I specially like the ZSCP proposal. It is very similar to a project we are involved in, the EDOS project (www.edos-project.org). I strongly believe that it is a perfect match for the whole idea of having a component architecture in the first place. I also like the common repository idea, if it can provide the same level of QA functions we currently have at nuxeo (trac.nuxeo.org + buildbot.nuxeo.org), though I fear that Trac can't scale well to a project spanning several important subprojects (here scaling means providing both global views and by-project views of what's going on). However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be decoupled. S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. Correct. I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree. I did agree that the two were too intermingled and thus clearly separated them. However, I personally do not have the resources to push two separate proposals on this, since I think the two are so closely related; in fact at the beginning I thought of them as one. If the common repository would not be part of the proposal, I would feel that people would dismiss it as nice to have, but it ain't gonna happen. It is very important to me that we will be able to implement the process quickly and get on our way certifying packages. I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it. Correct. The latest revision clearly separates the two. To show their independence, I have (a) placed the two subjects into two separate main sections, (b) made sure that none of section 2 (ZSCP) requires anything from section 3 (the repository), and (c) made sure that the process does not depend on Open Source licenses or information that would only be known in public projects. I have spent a lot of time trying to be *very careful* rereading the sections over and over again. If you find that anything in the document contradicts those 3 points above, let me know! I am very interested in fixing those type of bugs! :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote: However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be decoupled. The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons: (1) Bandwidth. Discussing two proposals of this size separately requires a lot of time. (2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is to bring the sub-communities together and define communication means on the code level. (3) If the ZSCP is discussed in too much abstraction, it will distance itself from what we can and want to do. While writing I have always used the Common Repository as reality check. (4) If the two were talked about separately, I think we would go back and forth on what information and process is needed. Right now, with the Common Repository in mind, I know exactly that the steps of the ZSCP will work. Overall, once we have a general agreement, section 2 will be lifted out of the proposal anyways to represent the first set of rules for the ZSCP. This document is proposal not just the rules. BTW, I am sorry for the confusion. I should have documented this better. I know I had in the earlier version, but it must have got lost. I have now added a section right at the beginning of section to communicate the separation better. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
[Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments about it! Hi Stephan, I have only skimmed the document, since it's 1am and I'm going to the mountains tomorrow. I expect a triple-digit post count in this thread when I return. :) I think the proposal is very well put-together. I think it admirably tries to make the Zope 3 community more inclusive of more peripheral developers who simply use the framework, and I think this will benefit Zope immensely if done right. My immediate concern is about resources: Who will have the time or incentive to police the common repository and grant certification? It seems to be a non-trivial process that may end up being quite time-consuming. It may be perceived as too much red tape. It may be perceived as too much centralised control, especially around licensing. At times it may also be open to debate, and a means of resolving disputes would seem necessary. There are certainly a lot of tick-boxes in your table! :-) Secondly, and partly because I'm expecting this to come up in my absence: your proposal is eerily simlar to Alan's two-level Plone collective post to plone-dev, about having an approved list of contributors and packages in a fenced-off repository, in addition to the collective. One obvious parallel here, by the way, is with the svn.plone.org/plone repository. That one is controlled by the Plone Foundation, requires a contributor agreement, and imposes restrictions on license and quality (albeit not as formally as you do). I think this is possibly a more valid comparison than with the Collective. I'm actually +1 on your proposal in spirit (if it can be shown to work, and if there is a broad consensus in the community to support it - in fact, this is important: if there is too much division, the proposal would likely be self-defeating) and -1 on his. The reason is that the Plone world is quite different from the Zope 3 world (although there are hard-core Plone developers who sit in both). The Plone community is much larger but naturally also more dispersed. The software is much more narrowly defined (depending on your point of view I suppose, but I mean - it's a CMS, Zope 3 is a framework) and the components developed for it are much closer to the user. Plone thrives on the size and vibrancy of its community. A very large part of its success comes from third party products that people find and marry with Plone to solve their problems. Without the low bar to contributing such components, without an open and very democratic Collective, and without meta-data on http://plone.org/products, I don't think this would be possible, certainly not as successful. The uptake of third party product users and contributors, and I think maybe also the quality, has improved quite significantly since we introduced the Products section on plone.org. A framework like Zope 3, and framework-level third party components, thrives more on control and consistency in vision and implementation. (In part, you're solving that with better guidelines around how to write code, guidelines that Zope 3 adopters also benefit from.) I think that the lower down the stack you go, the higher the degree of centralised quality-control needs to be. This, however, is at the expense of perceived eltism and a raised bar to entry. I think that balance is different in Plone than it is in Zope 3. Put differently, I think that *some* Plone components ought to move lower down the stack, target re-usability in different systems, and thus be subject to somewhat different rules. Perhaps these components shouldn't have been Plone components in the first place, or perhaps their evolution would start in Plone and move down the stack. But I think it would be damaging for the Plone community, given its current shape and culture, to impose those rules across the types of components that are higher up the stack - arguably those components which should be Plone components still. I'd also note that we solve (or try/continue to solve) some of the visibility and evaluation problems on http://plone.org/products (which is of course open source, albeit GPL, and you can re-use any of this you see fit). Some of those same things, you solve with more technical means - automated testing, common file layouts, XML metadata files. Again, I think these approaches work better at the small-component-high-reusability/framework level than they do with the types of user-facing components that typically land in the Collective. Although you proposal is not technical in design, it's technical in implementation (so to speak). Perhaps it would be fair to
[Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
Andrew Milton wrote: +---[ Stephan Richter ]-- | Hello everyone, | | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start | using the process for third party package development. | | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments | about it! So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then check it into the svn respository. Is this is correct? No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree. I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it. I'm therefore still suggesting to divide up the proposal. Philipp ___ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3-users@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
