On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:18, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only non-standard part left in the release name if we drop the
> > double 3 is the X. The X is a bit of a bother and will get us into
> > trouble anyway 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 3.1 is
> > actually Zope X3.4 + Zope 2 compatibility extensions 0.7", which sounds
> > less than ideal. I personally wouldn't mind if we just dropped the X.
> Yes, IMHO it'd be simpler to rename Zope X3.4 to Zope 3.4, and when the
> real Zope-3-with-Zope-2-compatibility arrives, either call it 3.6 or
> whatever is the current numbering, if it makes sense to have it in the
> same branch (which I understand may not be the case), or simply go to
> Zope 4.
My suspicion is that the Zope 2 code base will eventually become the Zope 3
code base as all Zope X3 pieces get merged into it via Five. Once we
completely fade out the Zope 2 code, we can call it Zope 4.
Here is why I am saying this:
- I do not believe that there will be ever a Zope 2 compatibility layer in
Zope X3. The other way around seems more pragmatic and is currently done in
- I do not want Zope X3 cluttered with old Zope 2 code plus glue. :-)
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list