-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jan 16, 2009, at 18:25 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> The concept of
> giving SVN repositories any kind of quality level aspect failed in the
> same way. Dependencies are specified in the setup.py and egg metadata.
> Quality is judged by who has written some code, number of tests, test
> coverage, amount of releases and so on.
This is partly right, but one aspect is missing. Developers who know
these metrics (tests, coverage, release history) can apply them,
correct. But non-developers don't really have anything to go by but
the package name, title and description. That's how they end up
incorporating bad packages with disappointing results.
Even though there is no official "dictator" for each of those common
namespaces like zope, z3c, plone, archetypes, etc I do see value in at
least attempting to be careful when choosing the namespace. The choice
of namespace probably does impart some kind of feeling of quality
level, and also of sensible grouping. Personal example: for me the
"zope" namespace sounds like a place where only those packages land
that are actually part of Zope 2 as delivered at that point in time.
"z3c" is for community-contributed add-ons, "plone" and "archetypes"
are related to Plone and Archetypes.
I think the Plone community itself has a similar situation. Where's
the line between plone.*, archetypes.* and collective.*? My ideal
world would have one namespace where everyone could dump code,
something like "collective" for the Plone community. If the package is
considered high-quality and/or considered for the inclusion in Plone,
as decided by the release manager(s), then the developer would be
allowed to put it into the plone or archetypes namespace.
Along these lines, I don't like to see globalrequest as a "zope"
Just my 2 cents.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -