Alexander Limi wrote:
3.x was still just unfinished vapourware, waiting for the fabled Zope2
integration (the dropping of the X) that people were talking about.
The way it was done was also incredibly unprofessional and created a lot
Oh don't be so rediculous. No-one ever said how Zope 2 integration would
happen. It became obvious to many that Five was "the way", as such,
there was no need for the X anymore. There was a _lot_ of discussion
Problem is, the X was never about whether Zope was "ready for production
use" - it had been *explicitly assigned* as a marker that meant Zope 2
migration/support was not there yet.
That was never actually firmly established. Some people thought that,
but others didn't, and in the end, Five is the way it's happening, so
there's no need for the X however you look at it, which is why it was
(I know the reasons, I know the plans for convergence, I know how Five
works - I'm just pointing out that this part made a lot of people lose
faith in Zope)
Oh well, their loss... I don't feel the same need to whore our community
out that some people in this thread seems to be focusing on. Zope 2 or 3
are both good tools, and they stand up well without the need for fancy
I'm all for letting the code speak. If Zope gels with people, yay for
them, any long may they enjoy it. If it doesn't, yay for them still, I
hope they find something that does.
That's not to put a dampener on the happy positive people trying to help
here, but whining why the X was or wasn't dropped doesn't seem to have
any positive benefit...
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list