Fred Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Wichert Akkerman <> wrote:
>> It seems that you want to have a 'ZTK+' which aims to be backwards
>> compatible with Zope 3 but is somehow not Zope 3 itself. That is
>> something that not everybody appears to be interested in judging by the
>> lack of progress on Zope 3 itself, but if you want to pursue that I do
>> not see any reason for you not to do that. But it should separate from
>> the ZTK.
> Agreed; the lean & mean ZTK is more interesting than this ZTK +
> construct.

Heh. I agree too. :)

> Creating a second known-good-set construct based on the ZTK and adding
> the selected package sounds like a straightforward task.  It
> should be able to reuse the testing policies with little or no change.


We should find some form of status for the '*' packages  that 
makes sense.

These packages are already largely deprecated. Many of them are slated 
for "deep freeze" maintenance. We can talk about removing such packages 
from it, or even putting the whole thing into deep freeze maintenance.

But right now we need to provide some guidance for how people can move 
away from these packages in a sane manner. And we should make sure we 
continue to test the* packages when we make ZTK changes, for 
the time being.

Let's work out a plan and a timeline.

> I agree with Martijn's desire for caution, however.  This split should
> be done, but this is a split, not a simple removal of the
> packages without setting up this ZTK+ construct.




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

Reply via email to