> We're doing a pretty ok job (if you ignore a near catastrophe) in
> providing what is, by today's standards, a bare-bones service.  User
> management is awkward.  We lack any automated support for review, and
> a number of other services provides by github and bitbucket.

There are now open source, self hosted and resilient alternatives with same 
level of ease.

Having such alternatives provided officially by ZF does not prevent fans of 
<name any commercial service here> from using it.

> svn.zope.org doesn't take much of my time most of the time, but it's
> still a potential (and occasional real) time suck for me that I'd
> love to jettison.

Nexedi is ready to:
- spend time with assigned workforce
- donate hardware

In order to make sure that buildout / Zope development infrastructure remains 
operated by community with garanteed data resiliency (logs, forums, not only 
code), auditability (signed contributor documents, certificates, connection 

> Life is short, why do this ourselves when there are excellent services
> available?

For the same reasons as Linux and open source in general exist.

Because there is no proof that such services will remain excellent (see 

Because there is a statistical proof showing that a decentralized hosting 
system operated by community under diverse juridictions (and managed by 
buildout for example....) can achieve higher resiliency and availability than a 
centralized hosting system operated by a single company under a single 

But maybe afterall, nobody believes anymore in open source merits.


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