-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> You are ignoring my point though: why should the ZTK have to be burdened
>> with trying to be backwards compatible with something that it never was?
>> Why are you insisting on putting Zope3 in it?
> We should not remove it until we have a good way to upgrade people away
> from it.
Who is upgrading? There are not historical users of the ZTK, only users
of package sets with greater or lesser intersections with the ZTK.
> And let's please not turn this around: I'm not putting anything *in*.
> Something was *removed*. Let's remove it responsibly. Not just disclaim
> responsibility and drop it all.
You are acting like we have code in the wild which needs to upgrade from
some released version of the ZTK to a newer one, and which will thereby
break. There is *no* released version: we can't possibly break
anybody. People who want to consume the yet-to-be-released ZTK are
going to need to make choices about how they include various pacakges
which aren't part of it; there is nothing surprising about that at all.
You seem to be worried that the removed packages will bitrot because
they aren't part of the ZTK: going forward, that may in fact be so, but
*only if they aren't being used by people who also track the ZTK*, in
which case their removal has harmed no one.
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -