Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:
Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to
require more maintenance than its predecessor.
You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?
Every single Plone project I've ever worked on has required more
maintenance than zope.org will ever see ;-)
I've changed my opinion on this over the last year to be inline with
Jens and Andrew: dump the lot, start again...
Or at least section it off to e.g. old.zope.org and lock that down.
Nope, dump it. We tried sectioning it off last time and people were
still relying on it when it finally broke and couldn't be fixed...
So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was
implemented and customised.
No, the problem was using a set of complex components to solve a problem
that is never going to see the maintenance necessary to make a complex
set of components a viable solution ;-)
I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of
Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...
So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for zope.org?
Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope-web maillist - Zopeemail@example.com