On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Ken Kuhlman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Maybe it's time to talk about GearShift becoming the official 1.5?
I think the key thing to understand about GearShift is that we're on good relations with them, and hope that they succeed. I believe that GearShift as it stands provides a reasonable stepping stone between 1.x and 2.0, but I also believe that with time it's API's will diverge more from tg2, and it's better for GearShift if we allow it to do so. If that happens under the TurboGears name, it will be confusing and frustrating to many users, but if it does not happen GearShift will always be the stunted stepchild of TG2. Either way Dag's code will not be allowed to live up to it's potential. I think GearShift is a very nice approach, and it's something that could have become TG2 if it had happened 2 years earlier ;) But as it is, it's a fork of the 1.x codebase, with lots of stuff backported from 2.0. Zope did this with zope 5, which was an amalgum of zope 2 and zope 3, and I don't want to repeat that process which has IMHO not been particularly good for zope 2 or zope 3. My greatest hope is that GearShift and TG2 continue to work together, that ideas and implementations get shared between the two frameworks, and that both continue to develop the fundamental philosophy of code-reuse, components, and WSGI compatability (inside and out) which are core to the TurboGears philosophy. --Mark Ramm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
