Tres Seaver wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> 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.
We are using the ZTK / 2.12 for Plone trunk to be released sometime next
year. But we need to balance of the risk that change introduces with
some actual big value for our end-users. That takes a bit of time and is
currently in the making.
> 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.
So far nobody tried to identify particular packages that should be kept
more compatible but argued against the general application of the Python
2.4 is unsupported rule.
Personally I don't care if the ZTK doesn't officially support Python 2.4
anymore, as long as nobody will try to actively remove Python 2.4
support. For my part I'd be happy to take care of the BBB support for
those packages I use.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -