Quoting Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting
> > features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2
> > because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe
> > you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features
> > you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development
> > base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine
> > efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level
> > stuff in their own projects.
> So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in
> anticipation of more community involvement?

I think you're exaggerating here. No one would give up Zope 3 because the 
repository has a
few extra packages laying around.

> This would be Zope 3's death blow
> as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months.

Why would it stall Zope 3 development?

> Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean.

The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' 
package will
continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other 
packages, I
didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point 
another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in 
'zope' package.

> > Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2
> > code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of
> > course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of
> > the proposal *wink*.
> You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all
> honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers
> too much.

Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to 
think hard
about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed out in the 
proposal ) are:

  * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer.

  * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 
are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for 
the 1%
case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help 
to you for
such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so 
this isn't


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to