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 - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests