On 7/14/05, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 14 Jul 2005, at 17:33, yuppie wrote: > > I don't think we should try to maintain code compatibility on HEAD. > > All we should promise is that imports of old profiles work and that > > we don't break the persistent SetupTool. > > I suppose right now we're all a little bit in the air about what CVS > HEAD is going to become. Will it be CMF 2.0 or CMF 1.6? If we go the > more radical way to 2.0 it would be more permissible to have lesss > backwards compatibility I'd say...
I vote for 1.6, at least until it's clear what benefits and roughly what changes 2.0 holds. -- Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/ CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/ _______________________________________________ Zope-CMF maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
