Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another use case, probably mostly in the context of Five, it's nice to
have an inclusive release of Zope 3 in Zope 2. The goal of reducing
the amount of code included in Zope 2 sounds nice in theory, but it
stops Five developers from exposing Zope 3 code in Zope 2 because it
simply isn't there in a particular release. It is *nice* to have all
of Zope 3 included in Zope 2. I don't want to lose that good thing in
the rush to minimize dependencies.
Right now Five/Zope2 include lots of packages they don't and may never
use. I want Five/Zope2 to not *have* to include packages they don't
need just because we've created monoliths. I especially don't want
to release experimental code through Five/Zope2 just because we don't
have our repository and/or packaging in order.
Hm, some confusion.. Perhaps the cause is this: With "Zope 3", I mean
Zope 3 *as released*. I imagine you might think of "Zope 3" differently,
i.e. Zope 3 as what's in the repository, which includes things beyond
what gets released (i.e experimental packages).
I'm talking about a Zope 2 release including (most of) what's in a Zope
3 release, so that Five developers can work on exposing *that* in Zope 2
too (which can then be part of the next Zope 2 release as we integrate
the newer Five in it).
I'm describing a pattern of working that has worked pretty well for
Five for a while now.
Of course that doesn't mean I want experimental packages in Zope 2 that
are not in a Zope 3 release. Five is about exposing Zope 3 as released
in Zope 2, it shouldn't expose *more* functionality than Zope 3 does. :)
Zope3-dev mailing list