Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2
>> should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you
>> all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with
>> 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously which. 1.3 is
>> already taken so we need some sort of suffix (a letter perhaps).
>> Suggestions are welcome :).
> Ugh, soon we'll get Five 1.2-RC3-beta5-whatever. :)
> Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is
> actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this regard? Is
> Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
> Is CMF?
CMF 1.6 is. I hope CMF 2.0 is not.
> I heard some mumblings perhaps 2.9 should be targetted. But perhaps
> Zope 2.8 is still solidly the target. Perhaps these use cases aren't
> driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use
> this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified?
The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When
now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be
in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML
directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from outside Products (so that
they will still receive the same initialization features and an entry in
the Control_Panel, etc.).
The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It
gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology
entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate
early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages.
> For simplicity, both for the developers using Five as well as for the
> developers building Five, it'd be much easier if we could simply all
> agree new features go into Five 1.4 for Zope 2.9.
Yes. I agree. I guess the only compelling reason to backport to Five 1.2
is to make people NOT upgrade to Zope 2.9 for this particular feature
Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess.
> Then again, I'm not absolutely against continuing the Five 1.2 line with
> new features.
> How to name it is indeed tricky. Perhaps in favor of
> comprehensibility we just want to name it 1.2.1, even though we add
> new features. While we cheat and add new features to what should be a
> pure bugfix release, potentially destabilizing it, I think it's
> easier on everyone's mind not to introduce a new line of Five 1.2's
> with features.
Yes, on second thought I agree.
> I also still hope that the pressure to add new features to Five 1.2
> will go away very quickly.
Well, in five months we can retire Five 1.0 and 1.2 for good. I do not
plan to maintain Five releases any longer than their corresponding Zope
releases (others are welcome to do that, of course).
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests