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 - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -