On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> This is from a note I sent yesterday to the ZTK steering group  
> (Martijn,
> Christian, Jim, Stephan), proposing criteria for removing packages  
> from
> the ZTK.  Martijn has already updated the docs to reflect some of the
> criteria: I figured I would throw the rest out for discussion:
> - - If a ZTK package isn't used by at least Zope2 and Grok, it  
> probably
>  isn't getting the love needed to stay at an appropriate quality level
>  to meet the ZTK goals.  Given that the Zope2 developers have as an
>  explicit goal removing dependencies on *any* zope.app.* package, I
>  obviously believe that such packages should not be part of the ZTK.
> - - Any package which doesn't have real narrative documentation  
> checked
>  into its 'docs' subdirectory, or a commitment from a maintainer
>  to create such docs, should be on probation.
> - - Any package which depends on a zope.* package which is *not* part
>  of the ZTK should itself be removed from the ZTK.
> - - As a corollary, any package which depends on any other  
> "probationary"
>  package is automatically probationary itself.
> - - (A little more speculative) Any package which doesn't have one or
>  more clearly-identified maintainers should be probationary.
> - - Packages which remain in the probationary status for a given  
> period
>  (three months?  six?) should be removed from the ZTK.
> The overall goal here is to keep the ZTK as coherent as possible, and
> avoid "bitrot" by focusing on the packages which are in active use by
> more than one project.

Sounds interesting.

Do you happen to have a list of packages that would be affected by  
these rules?

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to