Tres Seaver wrote: > Lennart Regebro wrote: >>> On 6/14/06, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> The time-based release cycle just amplifies this across many branches >>>> and point releases, so nobody really knows which products work with >>>> what branch/release and under what configuration some feature is >>>> supposed to emit a deprecation warning without a good deal of >>>> testing. The *reason* I'm stuck back on 2.8 and haven't upgraded the >>>> products I maintain to behave nicely on 2.9+ is because I just can't >>>> keep the fuck up with these sorts of changes. It's a self- >>>> perpetuating cycle because the only sane defensive maneuver for me is >>>> to stick with 2.8 for existing customer projects. I say to myself >>>> that I'll move them to 2.9 or 2.10, or 2.11, or whatever happens to >>>> be the current release once I get a chance to breathe, but honestly, >>>> this is the *last* thing I'll do; I've got plenty of other coding to do. >>> Well, ignoring the confusion about zLOG, updating things for a new >>> version of Zope with deprecation warnings is not much work. Honestly. >>> You update to the new version, look at the depracation warnings, and >>> do search/replace until they go away. >>> >>> Unless their are compatibility bugs, and that will happen sometimes, >>> that's it. >>> >>> I don't remember exactly how long it took to go to 2.9 for CPS, but it >>> wasn't very much work, and it was all related to changes in Five, >>> which you don't seem to use or worry about. > > Bzzt. Five is a *major* culprit for us (Chris and I are often working > together). The "lookup order" BBB foul in 2.9.2 is one of the major > reasons for sticking to 2.8.
I think we've been over this. It's not really a BBB foul because I classified it as a bug when I found out about the issue (http://codespeak.net/pipermail/z3-five/2006q1/001186.html). The rationale behind this thinking is being closer to Zope 3's behaviour where folder/foo would first look up the 'foo' item in the folder, then the @@foo view. I think we've also come to an agreement to make this pluggable. I don't remember anything happening, though. For all I care, we can go back to the old behaviour with the only exception that ObjectManagers are traversed attributes-first-views-later. Views should not shadow contained items. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )