On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 20:13, Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com> wrote:
> Since there are no ZTK releases Grok and BlueBream gain stability by
> pinning to a particular revision of ztk.cfg (and moving it forward when
> needed). Zope 2 could easily do the same. If more is needed, then a
> branch or tag can easily be made. Besides the perennial documentation
> issues, I also don't see why we couldn't just start releasing the ZTK;
> instead of pinning to an SVN revision we'd start pinning to an SVN tag
> (or a release URL with version number in it). What's the holdup, really?

Making a ZTK 1.0a seems to be a good idea to me, and should help here.
And we don't have to commit to anything, since it's an alpha. We could
even call it 0.1, if so desired. :)

> One objection I can see is that we might end up with quite a few
> releases in a short period, and it might be nicer to have a more stable
> base that people can build on. But they could simply pin to one release
> and stick with it for a while, right?


Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
+33 661 58 14 64
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to