-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>> As a side note, we just started the community discussion about moving at
>>> least to Zope 2.11 / 3.4 for Plone in a release by the end of this year.
>>> This should take away some of the burden with Zope 3.3, but will not
>>> change the Python 2.4 situation.
>> Why don't you plan to leapfrog 2.11 and go straight to 2.12 (which I
>> thought you were planning to do anyway)? That gets you onto a
>> "supported" version of Python (2.4 is in lockdown), and makes the ZTK
>> relevant to you.
> Zope 2.12 with its many changes is seen as too risky to introduce into
> our current stable series or into any release that aims to be released
> as final by the end of this year.
For what value of "risky"? If you are that risk-averse, then the entire
ZTK is beyond the event horizon and into the black hole of risk for you.
>> Plone's policies are in conflict, here:
>> - Ultra-stable about the Zope version: you claim you can't update the
>> version of Zope used in a 3.x release from the version used in 3.0.
>> - Completely unsupported use of "cherry-picked" updates to the packages
>> which shipped with that Zope.
> The conflict arises from Plone the product and its conservative policy
> and the desire of a minority of community members aiming for latest and
> greatest. Plone the product itself never steps out of the tight
> boundaries of the Zope release. But whoever wants to innovate on top of
> Plone using Zope or Z3C technologies often does.
> The innovators are who speak up here and try to keep it possible for
> them to work. But the vast majority of Plone users has no interest in
> these and prefers the ultra-stable policy of the product. Plone has that
> conflict of developer and end-user interest in many situations - this is
> just another example of it.
If Plone 3.x doesn't cherry pick anything which replaces packages
shipped with Zope 2.10, then the folks who are arguing that we should
retain BBB cruft / Python 2.4 compatibility are not speaking for the
broader Plone community, but only for their own individual applications
running on top of it. At that point, there is no guarantee that we can
even identify the set of packages which need this compatibility, because
every Plone-based buildout.cfg in the world will have a different
(possibly empty) set of cherries.
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
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -