> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Philipp von Weitershausen
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> Subject: RE: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in
> the sourcecoderepository
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > Btw, do we really count developer where are voting but never
> > contributed to the z3 trunk? I think normaly yes. But this is a
> > proposal where I think should be up to the Zope3 developer
> > to decide.
> Uh, why only Zope3 developers? This affects the whole Zope community!
> Really, I'm quite tired of trench wars like Zope 2 vs. Zope
> 3. Like Martijn said, we need
> to come together, not apart. I'm starting to get the feeling
> that some Zope 3 developers
> rather see Zope 2 die than embrace some of its experience and
> community. May I remember
> everyone again that we once said we'd do something about the
> transition (we even boldly
> called it "backward compatability" back then, but even I
> thought that this was quite too
> unrealistic). So far, nobody from Zope 3 has done anything in
> that direction, it's always
> been left to the Zope 2 people. Don't take me wrong, I'm not
> accusing, it naturally
> developed that way. But now that Zope 2 people want to join
> efforts, the Zope 3
> developers close the gates under the excuse of saving their
> "early adoption" investment?
that's not fair.
I didn't say something in this direction. I'm only tired to hear
thing like; if we do this or that, Zope2 developer will come and
solve all our missing parts or fix everything.
If Zope 2 developer will join the development on Zope3 there are
very welcome. And if you see the past, they allways get answer from
the mailinglist. I dont think one of each framework is better then
the other, but they are to different for such a merge.
I really like to see more real work done from Zope2 developers
in this direction before we take such a project on our shoulders.
(Again I don't say they do nothing, but there is to less interest
or commitment which makes me belive that this is the right time
to do a merge.)
I whouldn't argument this way if I whould see more then 2% of Zope2
developers working on a migration path for Zope2 to Zope3. And don't
tell me "not merging the trunk" is a show-stopper for that.
And please stop telling that there will be a migration path
for somthing. I guess there will never be such a path. Perhaps
custom products can be rewriten based on Zope3 libraries, but a real
migration path like known from other software will never be supported.
Normaly Zope2 based projects are to highly customized and this will
make it impossible for a clear migration path. Perhaps this will be
different for standard use of a Plone or Silva. Butdo you really know
somebody where is using Plone or Silva out of the box?
I really think we should stop draw a vision where we will get a
on cklick migration for custom projects. Then this is what people
normaly expectt if we speak about a migration path.
There will be a lot of work to migrate such a application.
And I'm not sure if it's the best way to migrate via Five.
What'a about the idea to write a new application pure based on Zope3
and then migrate the existing data in the ZODB? I guess this will be
much easier for many projects then migrate via existing hooks and
reflect every future refactoring over the next years.
This will be another reason for not having Zope2 in the Zope3 trunk.
As I know, Stephan was using such a migration on parts in SchoolTool
allready. This means non exsiting package/class instances where
migrated to totaly new code directly in the ZODB.
> > Again, the base idea isn't that bad at all. But since no Zope3
> > develper will support it, it will be a bad idea to force it.
> I'm a Zope 3 developer. Martijn is too. Don't jump to
> premature conclusions :).
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev mailing list