-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Chris Withers wrote: >> Lennart Regebro wrote: >>> Or, we could release 2.12 soon, and then start working on 2.13, a >>> version that explicitly is for people who want to move towards the >>> Zope Toolkit, and may not be completely backward compatible. >> This would be my vote. > > Right now the story for features in Zope 2.12 is at > http://docs.zope.org/zope2/releases/2.12/WHATSNEW.html and has the > following items: > > - Support for newer Python versions > - Fully eggified > - Zope Toolkit > - ZODB 3.9 > - Module cleanup > - Documentation updates > - Acquisition redux > - Object managers and IContainer > > If I understand some people correctly, they want "Fully eggified" over > all others. > > The risky and mostly undefined item on the list is the "Zope Toolkit". > While ZODB 3.9 isn't finished yet, it is close enough to not cause any > major trouble. So which of the three options do people want, when it > comes to the included Zope packages: > > 1. Stable - meaning use the same as Zope 2.11 does (== Zope 3.4) > 2. Zope Toolkit 1.0 (whatever that is) > 3. A newer mix of Zope packages, which particular mix isn't shared with > anyone else > > There are some bad implications for all of these items: > > 1. The stable option also looses us support for newer Python versions. > It is only very recently that packages got full deprecation warning less > support for Python 2.5 and 2.6. With Zope 3.4 we are stuck with Python 2.4. > > 2. The Zope Toolkit 1.0 isn't defined yet and will delay any kind of > beta release by some more undefined time. > > 3. The kind of wild mix of Zope packages we have right now is hard to > maintain, as nobody else is testing the particular combination in any > way and ongoing refactorings cause subtle breakage all the time. > > My personal vote still goes for option 2. What that means is trying to > establish a more minimal set of packages and declaring a particular > version soup of that mix as "stable". In order to get this done, we need > someone other than me trying to do the actual work of defining such set > of packages and the steering group to make a decision about the scope of > a 1.0 release. I'm all in favor of declaring whatever we basically got > now as a good 1.0 release and then continue to work on a Zope Toolkit > 2.0 where an exclusion of the ZMI bits and maybe the > zope.app.publication and friends refactorings are major work items. > > Speaking from the Plone perspective, a Zope 2.12 release that is > released as soon as possible has no particular value. No official Plone > version would use such a release and with the kind of changes we have, > it's unlikely that any Plone 3.x version will work with it.
At the moment, the Zope 2 package set it defined here: http://svn.zope.org/Zope/trunk/versions.cfg?view=markup I don't see any reason to hold up a 2.12 release while the ZTK stabilizes: in fact, I think the existince of a stable 2.12 release with a known package set may be a prerequisite for getting there. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ9xI2+gerLs4ltQ4RAjEAAKCmpxhaxX6NDuhrAAmnLdLh1/RLVQCgxlc8 4JQYuT+aGmNfqCWkudPDovw= =drGg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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 )