On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to
1.5 as possible, with the exception of GenericSetup. the types
stuff is the greyest area, however, because the changes in the way
TypeInfo objects are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a considerable
impact on the setup profiles and the import/export nodes. my
original idea was to have the 1.6 types import adapter use the 2.0
style, containment-based profile format, but to generate 1.5 style
TypeInfo objects. i haven't had time in recent weeks to keep up
w/ all of the stuff that you've been doing, yuppie, but i do have
a bit of concern that we're causing too much divergence btn 1.5
and 1.6 operationally. if we stray too far, then tres will stop
forward-porting any 1.5 fixes that he might make... ;-).
I really don't care much about how this is resolved. But from Rob's
checkins and the discussion following this mail
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-November/023399.html
I had the impression that CMF 1.6 should provide backwards
compatibility for Products written for Plone 2.1, not for Plone 2.1
itself. CMFDynamicViewFTI is an integral part of Plone 2.2 and I
would be surprised if any other Plone product registers its own
type info class. AFAICS the same applies to FlexibleTypeInformation
and CPS.
I don't think that my backports from the trunk widened that gap
between 1.5 and 1.6. It existed from the beginning of the 1.6 branch.
I have a feeling that I am the first one who tried to run Plone 2.1
on CMF 1.6, which is why no one noticed before. I certainly would
have spoken up if I had come across it as I have now.
After reading the thread you mention, which isn't all that clear when
it comes to outlining what the consequences of some of these code
changes are, I'm confused. I think I can boil it down to one
question: What is the use of the CMF 1.6 branch if it is not
compatible to Plone 2.1/2.1.1 and 2.1.2 when it comes out, and
possibly not even 2.2 since that's only a few months down the road?
I don't quite understand the distinction between "compatible with
products written for Plone 2.1 but not with Plone 2.1", I can't see
any sense in that route... it all comes back to one question: What is
the goal for the 1.6 branch? What specific audience is it targeted
at? I can see what it's apparently *not* targeted at: People who work
with Plone 2.1 - including those that might be interested in taking
up GenericSetup for their Plone product. I had thought that was our
audience.
jens
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
