Hey Jim,
I'm not pointing out inconsistencies in our message and expectations set for no reason; I think it's important to fix this aspect of our marketing. Please read the comments here in this light; I want to demonstrate how confused our message seems to be.
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote: [snip]
2. The X in Zope 3X means that there is not yet support for Zope 2 transition. It's about setting expectations.
But we're setting the expectation that one day there will be a version of Zope 3 that supports Zope 2.
No. We are setting the expectation that we will provide a supported transition process. That *could* be backwward compatibility, but it might be much less.
That's not the expectation that has been raised until quite recently, and since you're changing the expectation, that's one more argument for dropping the X, which is intimately tied in to the traditional story, which has been told for *years*, even though it might be changed now.
From an older roadmap document (found on Jeffrey Shell's weblog):
* Zope X3 first. The X stands for experimental. It has no support for migration from Zope 2. Zope 2 will continue development for some time. Zope 2.7.0 alpha 1 was recently released. And there has been talk of a Zope 2 variation inside Zope Corp that incorporates some Zope 3 features that is expected to be released later this year.
* Zope 3 (no X) later. This one will include support for Zope 2 products and content, probably through a conversion utility.
When we released Zope X3.0, Stephan wrote:
""" Zope X3 is the next major Zope release and has been written from scratch based on the latest software design patterns and the experiences of Zope 2. The "X" in the name stands for "experimental", since this release does not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2. """
The Zope wiki says this:
"Zope X3 is the first release of Zope3. The X signifies that it is not backwards compatible with Zope 2. A Zope 3 release with migration support will come later. See Zope3 for links, etc."
What are we implying here? We've been telling the whole world that the X is there because there is no backwards compatibility for Zope 2, in the release notes for Zope X3.0 even. In this light, it's not unreasonable for people to expect that we will add this compatibility.
People observing the project from a distance might rightfully start thinking things like this:
""" This doesn't seem to make too much sense. Zope 3X is still far from being Zope 3. Schooltool has been "developing a framework" for more than a year now - and now you are going to rip out all that plumbing and rewrite it anyway for another platform that will probably also require a lot of rewrite as Zope 3x "is a milestone" to Zope 3. What was "the hedge" against? Why don't you rather use the time to make schooltool a world class app and migrate to Z3 later? """
http://lists.schooltool.org/pipermail/schooltool/2004-December/000883.html
> Is this a realistic expectation? Stephan
doesn't seem to think so, for one.
I think it is reasonable.
You are saying it's reasonable to set the expectation that there is a supported transition process right? I mean, you just said Zope 3 won't support Zope 2 necessarily, just that we are setting the expectation for a transition process. In fact I've been involved in building such a transition process for about a year now, but it has nothing to do in my mind with the X in Zope X3.
We better have some clearer communication on this topic between Zope 3 core developers, as Stephan himself seems to distinguish between a still official "public plan" and his doubts it will be like that. At least, this is what I conclude from this statement earlier in this discussion:
> - 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 Five.
while at the same time, Stephan's been making the implication that this *is* the official plan in the release notes:
> The "X" in the name stands for "experimental", since this release does > not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2."
This is not acceptable in the long term.I'm OK with dropping the X is someone else wants to manage this communication another way, but I'd rather not drop it.
You could just say "Zope 3 is not compatible with Zope 2".
Well, but you're saying yourself Zope 3 will likely never be compatible with Zope 2, just that there will be a supported transition process. It therefore sounds not unreasonable to me to actually say "Zope 3 is not compatible with Zope 2". If you want to add a note about a transition process, that's your call; I cannot commit to building such a transition process myself right now besides the Five work already done.
Anyway, my message here is to get a bit clearer on the message. I've clearly gained a very different idea about what the X means than you do, and that's not for lack of observing the Zope 3 process. Let's get our marketing straightened out.
Regards,
Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
