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

Reply via email to