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.




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

Reply via email to