On Oct 28, 2:23 pm, Mark Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > No decision has yet been made, and I'm very interested in hearing what you > all think about all of this. Let the fireworks begin! ;)
It seems like: * Pylons 1 is "done" and won't get much future work done on it * Pylons and bfg are likely to merge anyway So without merging with other projects, TurboGears will eventually need to either replace or take over Pylons 1.0. After the initial "here we go again" feeling, I reckon that the Pyramid approach for TG3 sounds the best long term option. Especially as it seems like: * The Pylons and bfg devs are accepting of TurboGears and it's ideas/ approaches * TG 2 to Pyramid sounds like it might be less disruptive than TG 1 to TG 2 It does risk yet more internal fragmentation though. In my mind the biggest things needed by a full stack project wanting to "compete" with Django or Rails aren't so much technical, but things like community growth and momentum. >From a community perspective TG has always struggled to reach a critical sustainable mass. And with the fragmentation and number of good choices available in the Python web world, I don't think having better technology alone will ever change that. Adding more development responsibilities to the existing TG community (eg maintaining Pylons 1.0 or building replacements) won't help with growing the userbase or community, whereas merging hopefully should - provided most of the existing developers and community members from the 3 projects like the idea though. Just 2 cents from the cheap seats... -- Cheers Anton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.
