Christian Theune wrote:

Zope X3 <base-version>/CC-r<release-version>

where a "0" can be ommitted:

Zope X3 3.1CC
Zope X3 3.1/CC-r1
Zope X3 3.1/CC-r2

This is a scheme I see in distributions a lot to identify changes made
by a distributor to an original version of a package. (E.g.
apache-2.0.53-r1, apache-2.0.53-r2, ...)

Any opposition to this?

I don't understand why such complication is necessary. Why do we need to name "3" twice in the release name? I never quite understood why we're saying Zope X Three Three Dot One, and not just Zope X Three Dot One. It's fairly confusing, I think.

I don't really understand the motivations behind CC-r1 and all that. If this is about bugfix releases, why not go for the industry standard approach, used by Zope 2, which would be:

Zope X3.1.2

i.e. major, minor, bugfix. We don't need to invent new systems here..

The only non-standard part here is the X, which is a bit of a bother and will get us into trouble eventually if a Zope 3 proper is ever released, as I can't see how we'd avoid situations where we'd have to say: "Zope 3 is actually Zope X3.4 + Zope 2 compatibility extensions"... I personally wouldn't mind if we just dropped the X, but I can imagine some political repercussions to that. :)


Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to