Chris McDonough wrote:
I've looked at that issue many times during various bug days and it
sounded reasonable enough but it always seemed like slightly
higher-hanging fruit than other issues because it introduces new
features as well as fixes bugs.

Personally I prefer that someone who wants to introduce new features
(even small ones, like API additions) into the core do it via their own
committer privileges and thus sign up to maintain it for the rest of
eternity, or longer ;-)  The reason I think people don't jump on
collector issues like this one is because of the natural "he who touched
it last owns it" policy of the core code.  I own enough of Zope 2 core
code to make me uncomfortable at this point; owning more just isn't very
attractive to me unless the upside is very up.

Straightforward obvious bugfix patches with limited scopes are another
matter; those usually get applied first during bug days.  This is also
why "geddons" are attractive; they focus effort on an isomorphic class
of bugs without requring that the fixer wade through proposals for
features, API improvements, and provides an effective loophole for "he
who touched it last" problem.

- C

On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 14:43, Jamie Heilman wrote:

Tres Seaver wrote:

We should have a 'hasattr-geddon' and remove every trace of that monstrosity from Zope and the CMF; likewise a 'bareexcept-geddon' (there might be a few places which are smart enough to do 'except:', but I doubt it).

Now its not a geddon by any means, but the code I wrote and offered in bug 911 fixes 3 (iirc) bare excepts, a couple of privacy holes, several bugs, and adds some enhancements that my tests have shown are basically backwards compatible with everything out there (though I didn't realize at the time CMF had a cache manager of its own and I'm not sure how they interact). Its been a year now since I offered that code and I haven't gotten so much as a comment on it. Maybe its time to wander over and give it a look?

I just looked at the latest version of, and one reason I can see (besides the one Chris mentions) for slighting it is that it conflates "stylistic" changes with "substantive" ones. I have a hard time evaluating the intent of the changes, because I can't isolate the substance. For instance, a bunch of code is re-ordered in the file, sometimes with "trivial" formatting changes thrown in. Jamie, is your version truly based on 1.10? Or had you been maintaining your fixes and had the module change radically out from under you?

If I do a "surface cleanup" of, would you be willing to generate a new patch against it for any substantive issues I miss?

Tres Seaver                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope Corporation      "Zope Dealers"

Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to