On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > 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? Gary _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )