-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/17/2011 01:01 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: > On 17 November 2011 16:32, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
>>> * Zope 4 will not have a release cycle independent of Plone. Zope >>> 4 only exists as a transitional path for Zope 2 based applications >>> and experience has shown that Zope 2 releases not used in any >>> Plone release do not receive the same level of ongoing >>> maintenance. >> >> >> I would actually argue that "Zope4" have no real release cycle at >> all: instead, the individual pieces which make up Zope should have >> their own cycles, with perhaps a ZTK-like tracking set that Plone >> and others use as platform targets. > > -1 - we'll need something to amalgamate this into a release and we'll > need a way to manage and number those releases. That is what the ZTK does now: it is an amalgamation of releases of separately-managed packages, which periodically gets a versioned release itself, mapped as an index or a 'versions.cfg' file. >>> We want to encourage all features to be developed on separate >>> feature branches so we can maintain a stable trunk. Before these >>> feature branches are merged they should be posted to the mailing >>> list for review. >>> >>> This process will necessitate a lot of merging, so I want to >>> propose that we move to Git for development (something we found >>> very helpful at our recent San Francisco Zope 4 sprint.) >> >> >> Note that this question is *not* suitable for "loudest voice on >> zope-dev wins" ressolution. The software belongs to the Zope >> Foundation, which will make any such decision. The work done on >> github by the Zope4 sprinters in SF should be seen as scratchpads >> for work which will be migrated back into the canonical repository >> for each project. >> >> A couple of points for consideration: >> >> - - bzr and hg are pretty much isomorphic to git WRT this kind of >> practice. Both have claims on our community which Git does not (hg >> because it is the tool of choice for Python, bzr because we already >> use Launchpad). Note that I use Git daily, and the others somewhat >> less frequently: I'm not speaking from ignorance here. >> >> - - Merging feature branches in SVN is not *that* difficult, >> typically: I've done scores of such merges myself with almost no >> pain (and the really painful ones would have been pretty much as bad >> with git / bzr / hg). > > In the Plone community, we held a poll. GitHub won hands-down. The > second choice was staying with self-hosted SVN Again, this is a choice to be made by the foundation: any polling will be done by the members of the foundation (this might be the biggest non-election item on the agenda for the next annual meeting). > GitHub is a big leap forward in software project support. It's also > rapidly becoming a de-facto place for many people to look for > software. We win if the people we want to encourage to fix bugs or > contribute features have a low barrier to entry. github's biggest wins, compared to self-hosted git or SVN, are for "casual" contributors submitting easy-to-merge patches. Given that the new-old Zope is explicitly avoiding marketing itself to new developers, I don't find that win all that convincing: there is no point in having machinery for pull requests from folks who could push the changes themselves. > Note that this also includes Plone developers working on Plone at > this stage, since Plone has now moved to GitHub. So, my personal vote > would be for Zope to use GitHub (with a backup mirror), allowing me to > have a more integrated toolchain. > > Personally, I find GitHub substantially better than BitBucket, > especially for collaboration, and Launchpad nearly unusable. I'd > encourage you to look at usage and growth statistics for the three > main hosting/collaboration services. I don't think "what everybody else is doing" is all that relevant: this isn't a popularity contest, and Zope has permanently lost its standing with the shiny-obsessed "cool kids." We need to choose on the basis of enabling the currently active developers to work together productively. >>> I don't have any opinion on where the canonical repository should >>> be hosted - I know some people have strong opinions that this >>> should be on Zope Foundation controlled hardware. >> >> I would note that hosting Git repositories without Github reduces >> the value proposition substantially: Git's wins in merging are much >> less significant than the collaboration workflow changes which >> github makes possible (tracking pull requests, in particular). >> Launchpad provides a similar mechanism, albeit one which is less >> sexy to use. OTOH, github's bug tracker is nothing to write home >> about, compared to Launchpad. > > Right - Plone has chosen to stick with self-hosted Trac for bug > tracking. I'd imagine Lanchpad remaining Zope's bug tracker. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7FZGQACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7JBwCeNfwV5YpDX1kj5LOLoojl9RDu guQAnRxA77PShUIQl4GmEGP4naM+Abzf =C/n7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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 )
