Thomas Lotze wrote:

> I've considered all packages mentioned in the current ztk.cfg that come
> from the zope.* namespace. [...]
> Come to think about it, I'm not sure whether and how far I should
> investigate beyond the ztk for removals like this; are there zope.*
> packages in the repository that should no longer be cared about at all?

I'd like to take this up again: during the last few days I've stumbled on
a number of things I'd like to clean up, such as inter-package
dependencies or small changes to some API. Everytime I want to go ahead
and try some change, or ask this list about opinions along with a best
possible description of what it would imply for other Zope packages, I
keep finding that it is still not well defined what's the minimal or the
optimal set of packages that need to be taken into consideration before
committing to the trunk or even releasing a new version of a package.
There's also nothing about this on to be found in the ZTK docs unless I've
overlooked something obvious.

There are a number of sets of packages that are or might conceivably be of

- obviously what ztk.cfg lists as included packages

- probably what ztk.cfg lists as packages under review

- possibly what other packages are pinned by ztk.cfg as dependencies

- probably not what's called zope.* in subversion

While it is clear that the packages included in the ZTK need to be OK at
all times, I'm pretty sure that they alone aren't sufficient.

As an additional observation, not all the packages listed as dependencies
in ztk.cfg are passing their tests currently: zope.kgs and don't.

I'd be very much interested in a clear guideline on which packages need to
pass their tests after a change for a developer to feel safe about
committing it to the trunk.

Stephan: We've talked about this and some related things when you visited
us at our office in Halle. Have you made your notes from that meeting
available yet? Apologies if I just haven't noticed that you did.


Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to