On 5/3/10 12:34 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> I expect us to define the process around package releases and updating
>> the ZTK. It's not entirely clear to me who should and who is allowed
>> to update the ZTK definition. We'll figure things out and once we have
>> I'll stick to the rules.
>
> My few cents:
>
> I think everybody should be allowed to update the ZTK definition. They
> should follow certain guidelines (run tests, and such. Maybe updating a
> changelog is a good idea too). Stability can be taken care of by
> branching and tagging. I.e. the same guidelines as we have for other
> pieces of code can be a good starting point.
>
> To get back to the discussion that caused the fork. We have implicit,
> but I think widely understood and accepted, rules about backwards
> compatibility. So we don't expect someone to rip out half the code of a
> Python package just like that. Generally we expect the tests to continue
> to run. Similarly we shouldn't just drop things from the ZTK without
> special action (this involves removing tests too!). We started to try to
> spell some of that out here long ago:
>
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/coreextra.html
>
> But I'd hate it if the ZTK trunk became some kind of bureaucratic maze,
> as it'd stop me from getting work done.

I suggest that we wait impatiently for the ZTK steering committee to 
come up with a useful policy instead of trying to do their work when 
none of us volunteered for the task.

Wichert.

_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to