On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote: [snip]
I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility. I know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code. I'd like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works. If that just means I can't use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3 integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7.
Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 works, as we're actively using it.
Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there.
I hope you'll forgive the skepticism, it's just that the a lot of the people talking about doing this merge haven't actually checked anything into Zope 2 in a pretty long time, and commit frequency is typically a good indicator (maybe the only indicator) of who might continue to maintain the codebase in the future.
You're right to be skeptical. On the other hand, I haven't seen you commit anything into Five anytime recently. :)
Anyway, we need to motivate people to contribute. I've contribued plenty to other projects, not much to Zope, so I started wondering why that might be so. One reason is definitely that a contribution to Zope now may only result in a release of this in the uncertain future, so I have little medium term motivation to contribute. Most of my business motivation is short and medium term, and I believe I share this with many people.
It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2 itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with one or the other at any given time and not both. This isn't exactly idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too.
Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted down? ;-)
I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with Five, so you're just ignorant. ;)
Right. That's clear. I'm glad you've committed to maintaining it.
Sure, not a problem. I don't know what exactly makes Z4I complicated; I also know Five can be complicated, but the complications are isolated and the developer experience should be easy enough.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce