On 22.07.13 18:01, Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/22/2013 09:15 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
I agree, this could be part of ZODB and it would be fine.
Splitting out BTrees was a conscious decision to serve two goals:
- - Allow evolving it (in particular, the work to port it to Py3k / PyPy)
without stalling on the larger ZODB project. For ongoing work, it is
useful to be able to release a fix for a BTrees-only bug without needing
to release ZODB.
- - Allow projects which use BTrees (as base classes or attributes) to be
tested without needing to install all of ZODB.
I consider both of those concerns still important, and so am -1 on
re-absorbing BTrees into ZODB.
Yes, I understand this intention and see no problem:
Just the namespace might be ZODB.Btrees which would not change
the split. They would still live alone, separate projects.
This is just plugged in, like zlibstorage (if it were not ZODB3 ;-) )
Minor point, anyway ;-)
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tis...@stackless.com>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org