Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com>:
>> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com>:
>>>>>> Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
>>>>>> soon:  it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
>>>>> Why not? It looks that it's just a dependency cleanup, so it can be
>>>>> merged (and released!) really soon (if noone objects, of course). I
>>>>> personally don't like long-living branches and forks.
>>>> Well, part of the dependency cleanup involves making a possibly-
>>>> controversial coding style change ("from imports"),
>>> Will it cause any problems in packages that use existing
>>> zope.component with its current coding style? If not, then why can it
>>> be a problem?
>> Because Jim doesn't like "from" imports. :)
> I think, it's can be important when we talking about some "coding
> style standard", but when from imports are used as a tool to achieve
> specific need, I don't think that Jim will object. :)
> +1 on dropping zope.deferredimport+zope.proxy dependency ASAP.

Agreed, +1 from the Zope Framework Steering Group.

I've recorded this decision here:




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