Chris McDonough wrote:
> I don't think "the ZTK" as defined by the historical constraints under 
> discussion here has much attraction for a large number of folks who are 
> otherwise willing to put effort into maintaining Zope packages.
> For these folks, any reduction in number of dependencies and test maintenance 
> is a net win, because they just don't use the stuff they throw out, and they 
> don't have any Grok or legacy Zope3 apps in production to maintain that uses 
> this stuff either.
> So maybe these folks should come up with their own "KGS" for whatever they 
> need 
> as a subset of "the ZTK".  In particular, maybe Zope2 should just be based on 
> this subset.

I think the ZTK should be a smaller thing, but we need to find what that 
smaller thing is first. I agree with the general idea underlying this 
move, just not the way it was done, disclaiming responsibility.

I'm quite sure that most of the* packages that were dropped 
are just not very useful anymore. But we should drop them responsibly.



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

Reply via email to