Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal

[Stefane Fermigier]

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

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope3-Users] Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal

[Stephan Richter]

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