Quoting Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 21:43, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > I know that you, Roger, have been contributing a lot to new exciting
> > features in Zope 3. In doing so, you would never have to worry about Zope 2
> > because Zope 2 will only explicitly use certain Zope 3 features. I believe
> > you would in fact benefit from the Zope 2 combination because the features
> > you write would get much better exposure to a large install and development
> > base that is *hungry* for Zope 3 technology. Also, you could combine
> > efforts with people who, until now, have been implementing framework-level
> > stuff in their own projects.
>
> So you think it is better to loose the existing Zope 3 developers in
> anticipation of more community involvement?

I think you're exaggerating here. No one would give up Zope 3 because the 
repository has a
few extra packages laying around.

> This would be Zope 3's death blow
> as we know it, because it would stall Zope 3 for several months.

Why would it stall Zope 3 development?

> Honestly, I rather have less exposure and keep the code base clean.

The code base stays clean, I dunno how often I shall repeat it. The 'zope' 
package will
continue to offer clean software in the style of Zope 3. As for the other 
packages, I
didn't think it was necessary to say that we all want them to go away at point 
or
another, as their functionality is being integrated (if not already present) in 
the
'zope' package.

> > Bottom line: I find the risk of your having to dig through horrible Zope 2
> > code much lower than the chance of joint efforts on Zope 3 technology. Of
> > course, it'd be quite surprising if I didn't believe that as the author of
> > the proposal *wink*.
>
> You are kidding, right? You know April 1st is not for another 4 months. In all
> honesty, I think you are downplaying the new overhead of Zope 3 developers
> too much.

Can you give me an example of what kind of overhead you see? I've tried to 
think hard
about it and the only things I could come up with (as pointed out in the 
proposal ) are:

  * running Zope 2 tests in addition to Zope 3 tests; this is a no brainer.

  * if a test fails, fix it. Nearly *all* tests in Zope 2 that involve Zope 3 
technology
are in Five and they are doctests. No obscure magic, no horrible code. And for 
the 1%
case of a huge refactoring, there can be joint efforts. I hereby offer my help 
to you for
such cases (and I've done so in big refactorings in the early Zope 3 days, so 
this isn't
new).

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to