Tres Seaver wrote:
> The reality is that the* packages don't fit the mission of the
> ZTK:  they aren't widely-reusable libraries, but pieces of a particular
> appserver / framework.  The other reality is that nobody is stepping up
> to do the work to maintain that appserver.

I agree. But I'm not talking about maintaining the app server. I'm 
talking about helping people to move away from most of those packages, 
or otherwise find ways to maintain them.

> There is *not* BBB issue with dropping those packagse from the ZTK,
> because everybody who is currently deployed with them has a valid way to
> use them *without* the ZTK.  Pushing the burden of maintenance of those
> packages onto the ZTK, instaead of onto the portions of the community
> who use them, reduces the viability of the ZTK for almost no gain.

I think the ZTK developers have a responsibility to this use of the ZTK 
just like to anyone else's use. Just stopping to test whether all of 
this works with the ZTK isn't fulfilling our responsibility.

> Defining those upgrade paths is the responsibility of the various groups
> consuming the (new) ZTK:  in the case of Zope2, the Zope2 maintainers
> have chosen to do the work to remove all dependencies on*
> packages from Zope2, leaving Zope2 free to use a zope-app-free ZTK
> without any issues.

Maintaining a coherent set of versions of* packages is a 
responsibility that we can share in our community. Dropping this 
responsibility into a black hole by suddenly stopping to do so within 
the context of the ZTK is not the right way forward.

>>> For Zope2 we have covered the upgrade story already. Zope 2.12 uses
>>> its own KGS, which includes the entire set of packages in
>>> compatible versions. 
>> Let's please please please maintain that set of* packages 
>> centrally. Zope 2 isn't the only consumer of these packages.
> What set?  Why do you think that any given set of them is worth
> maintaining?  Grok uses some subset of them, while a Zope3 app uses a
> bigger set, but Zope2 uses none:  why is Grok's set (or Zope3's)
> important enough for the wider group of ZTK developers to care about?

Because we have a ton of installed base out there and we have a 
responsibility to maintain backwards compatibility. If some people don't 
care about that it's fine, but I expect at least some measure of 
cooperation with those who do.

>> -1 to this change. I'm going to add the* packages back to the 
>> ZTK until we've had a proper discussion about how, as a Zope community, 
>> we go forward with this. Delegating this responsibility *separately* to 
>> sub projects is just plain silly.
> You are treading on very dangerous ground here:  commit wars are not a
> good way to solve this problem.

Sure. Unilaterally removing a huge amount of packages from a shared KGS 
is also not a good way to solve this problem.



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

Reply via email to