On 2009-9-21 17:19, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Hey, > > Generally I believe that these rules if strictly applied wouldn't result > in a usable ZTK. Hanno already mentions the testing dependencies, which > we've barely started analyzing. Documentation in 'docs' would disqualify > just about any package (and Reinout brings up a few objections). > > A number of thoughts: > > * even without radically pruning the ZTK particular subsets of the ZTK > are becoming a lot more useful than when we started, due the dependency > refactoring. This refactoring is ongoing. > > * we need some stability for those apps that already are built on top of > Zope 3. These will still be using zope.app* packages for some time. > Right now we can test lots of breakages of zope.app* packages by using > the ZTK compattests. If we removed them from the ZTK soon, we'd need an > equivalent testing infrastructure for an expanded ZTK, and management > policy will be harder. > > I think we could translate these rules from "not be part of the ZTK" to > goals for the ZTK packages: > > - we should aim for ZTK packages to be used by Zope 3 apps, Zope 2 and > Grok. The code in the ZTK should be *used*. > > - ZTK packages should have narrative documentation. We should actively > work to create such narrative documentation.
How do you define narrative documentation? Do you consider z3c.form to have narrative documentation for example? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wich...@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. _______________________________________________ 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 )