Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > What makes you think so? I, for one, have not the slightest
> > clue of how zope.wfmc works.
> > Still I'm able to contribute to Zope 3, am I not? If I
> > refactor something, I might even
> > have to touch zope.wfmc, but for the most part this could be
> > very superficial.
> That's not true. E.g. if you register interfaces with bad
> docstrings, you will break the package functional
> tests or other wrong registrations will fail in broken links etc.

So keeping Zope 3 packages up to speed can also be hard. What's your point? 
That keeping 
Five or Zope 2 packages using Zope 3 code up to speed is a different quality of 
I don't think so.

> I think it's not that easy and functional tests will become a
> hard part to maintain in the future if we mix both framework.

Now, *that* you'll have to explain to me...

> > And if
> > not, I have some trusty community members who can help me on a branch.
> That's excatly what we don't whant. We are not able to develope
> and ask others for fixes. This whon't work.

It has worked in the past. Stephan and I used to do a lot together on geddons. 
recently Fred and I complemented each other on several things related to 
zpkgutils. Let's
 not pretend we're not teamplayers because we usually are.

> Btw, what's next.
> Do we have to merge CMF, Plone and CPS also into the core
> only because other whon't be able to develop with otherwise.

You know that's not what I'm proposing. I'm not even going to go into this 
point further.
My proposal is up for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

> Common, if somebody is not able to install Zope3, Zope2 and Five,
> I dont' think he will be able to help. I'm really afraid about the
> idea if a merge will be the part where developer bring to the Zope3
> core development.

I'm afraid I don't see the reason for such fear. I see a few risks, as I've 
laid them out
in the proposals, and I see lots of opportunities.

> Btw, I can't here reasons like that. Every half year there is another
> reason what we should do for Zope2 developer so that they will
> contribute more.

I might be mistaken, but I think this proposal is the first serious attempt, 
ignoring the
two books out there *wink*.

> I think you don't speak for all of them and belive that
> a good skilled developer is able to get ver easy into the Zope3 development.

Tres, Jens, Martijn, Martin, Morton, and Chris -- all people with strong Zope 2 
-- have given me the opposite impression.

> Do you really think it's easier for Zope2 developer to get into Zope3
> only because the code lives in the same repsoitory.


> You draw the picture a little bit to easy.


> I think if somebody will become a Zope3
> developer he has to learn the totly new framework first. And not only
> download the code.

Take Chris McDonough's excellent post. He's *exactly* the kinda guy I want to 
address. He
has TONS of experience of running actual serious sites with Zope 2 and he sees 
points in Zope 3 that can be improved. Why haven't these points been at the tip 
of his
fingers yet? Do you think he's unable to learn Zope 3?

Not everyone had the luxury of being an early Zope 3 adopter...


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to