Tres Seaver wrote:
In this vision, the Zope 3 project should stay where it is and push
things forward. That doesn't mean Five should be ignored by Zope 3
developers, but it should be compartmentalized in people's minds. Zope 3
does innovation, Five does integration, and then the big codebases can
move forward using both.
I think the other major point is the "door #2" proposal takes pressure
off of Zope3:  under that regime, Zope3 does not need to grow all the
features present in Zope2, which door #1 *does* imply.

What I'm confused about is that we've already solidly gone through door #2 a while ago. Since we went through door #1 once people started developing pure Zope 3 applications, I don't see the either-or of these visions.

Sure, there is pressure on Zope 3 for features that aren't there yet. Overall I think that's good. The pressure shouldn't be artificial and just a point by point comparison with Zope 2, but if actual projects need a feature in Zope 3 they can start building it and that's only good.

What is new here? What is the concrete proposal besides juggling around names confusing everybody?


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

Reply via email to