Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-19 22:18 +0100:
> ....
>On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Dieter Maurer <> wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
>>> ...
>>>You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
>>>list of versions.
>> Apparently, "grok" was forced to go this route.
>> But, in principle, this is undesirable.
>No, it's very desirable if you want to provide a stable platform at
>all. A platform is *not* stable if each time a new user installs it he
>might end up with a different set of "latest" versions - there's just
>no way to communicate about bugs if it's that way. It's also just not
>right to force all the users of a framework to make the determination
>which version to use for dozens of packages. The idea of using a
>framework is to make life easier, not harder.

That's your point of view -- mine is different (maybe, because my
frameworks are much smaller).

>> Most of my components work with a wide version range of other
>> components. I would not like to expose a single version.
>> Usually, I include a narrative of the form: known to work with 2.6.x
>> through 2.11.x; may work with other versions as well (not tested).
>What will you do once Zope 2 is split up into multiple packages? How
>would you express such a thing about Zope 3 if there is no canonical
>list of versions (such as KGS)? Grok is in the position of Zope 2 or
>Zope 3 here.

My components will only depend on some of the (future) Zope 2 components
in an essential way.
Others may significantly change without a serious effect on
my components.
Thus, I will document in a way similar to "tested with Zope 2.8, 2.9, 2.10;
ZODB 3.2, 3.3, 3.4".

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

Reply via email to