On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Martijn Faassen<[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > Fabio Tranchitella wrote: >> it is evident that there is no consensus on the list of packages that are >> part of the Zope Toolkit. As Gary suggested me, it looks like the concept >> of ZTK is different for each developer and it is more or less "the packages >> I use and I care about". > > In a way the consensus should be reflected by the list you mention: > > http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/packages.html > > > We need a policy to define the ZTK in an explicit way, otherwise we > > will never get a *real* ZTK KGS that can be used to build applications > > and the whole concept of ZTK will always be fuzzy. > > We have a list. I propose that in order to stop long discussions about > what should be in this list, we just start with what's in this list, by > circular definition. :)
+1 Except that the "under review" list is pretty long. Shall we include everything that's under review as a starting point? We can always lobby to remove some later. > We need to get a procedure in place to do compat tests of what's in that > list, dependency graph guarding of what's in that list, and locking down > a KGS for that list. That's what Fabio and others are working on. (Well, the first and third.) > I think that since we have a list doing all these > things is only a matter of work - there's no fundamental questions we > need answered before we can do this work. Once the base is there we can > expand on it. Sounds good. > > I think what we need is a policy for adding packages into this list, and > retiring packages from the list. Yup > Removal: I think an informal show of hands that asks "is this package > important?" on the mailing list is useful there. The other is a > situation that nothing depends on that package anymore. Once those two > are reached, I think it'd be as simple as petitioning the steering group > to have a package removed. Who's on the steering group? > Addition: this one is much tougher. New packages can get added if > they're factored out of existing packages, that's easy. But > fundamentally new package? We need to cross that bridge when we get to > this. I suspect innovation for the time being will mostly be around the > toolkit, not in it, or in the form of changes to existing packages. I > think generally candidates for addition are packages that would change > the way we arrange toolkit-based libraries themselves - I recall Shane's > WSGI discussions as an example. +1 > I realize that to build "real" apps everybody will come up with a list > of extra packages beyond the ZTK that they feel are needed too. Let a > thousand flowers bloom I'd say - we just need a clean, fertile soil that > we need to maintain. We already got plants growing in the soil anyway > (Zope 2, Grok, bfg, and lots of Zope 3 apps). +1 > And of course there's some philosophy behind what's in the list now: > it's a set of libraries shared by Zope 2, Zope 3 (whatever that is) and > Grok. That's not the only answer and it's not quite the correct answer > even, It's a good enough start. Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] 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 )
