Thomas Lotze wrote: > Martijn Faassen wrote: > >> Are people okay with the proposed semantics? > > I am. > >> Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas? > > I'm not comfortable with the idea of an automatic fall-back for IFoo(x, y) > but maybe that changes after thinking about it some more.
I'm not comfortable with it either. I was just thinking out loud on that. My question should've been formulated more clearly. I mean an upgrade path where 3.x and 4.x are maintained in parallel and people can do an incremental upgrade in 3.x. >> Most importantly, any volunteers? > > I'd like to work on this. Great! Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ 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 )
