Terry Hancock wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100
Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you please stop using a new name for Zope 3 or the
zope package? You can explain this perfectly well using
the existing, well established names.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To me the name
change for Zope 3 seems essential. I'm not strongly
inclined as to whether "Z" or "Zed" or ? is a good
choice for the name, but I think the google search argument
suggests it should be spelled out rather than an initial.
Also, if you want it pronounced "zed", you'd better spell it
out for us Americans who will otherwise call it
I agree that it'd have been better for us, in retrospect, if Zope 3 were
not called "Zope" at all, but something else.
I also agree that if we change any name, changing the name of Zope 3 to
something else is probably the least damaging and has potential gains,
such as dropping the commitment that Zope 3 will do what Zope 2 can, and
so on. It also has the potential gain that non-Zope people will be more
likely to adopt the use of Zope 3 code. Whether the gain outweighs the
damage done I'm not so sure of.
I recommend any message change that requires requires significant future
development activity to make true.
So, a proposal that says we need have a version of Zope that can run
both Zope 2 and Zope 3 is fine, but I don't want to change the name of
Zope 2 now based on the assumption that this will happen 2 years from
now. It won't happen soon and, though I don't assume and hope this, it
might never happen.
Zope3-dev mailing list