On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:30 AM, Bernd Dorn wrote:
On 26.06.2007, at 21:44, Gary Poster wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bernd Dorn wrote:
i think as long the package has a dev dependency like ZODB 3.9 it
should at least have alpha or beta status
because it pulls in software that has development status like zodb
3.9 and the release of 3.9 will take at least a half a year from
now on imho.
My basic response--"don't use this version of zope.app.keyreference"--
doesn't appear to be sufficient for you (or Theuni, from his
"Specifying upper limits in dependencies" email today). It is ok for
me because my project is specifying versions, which is also the
strategy he says he is pursuing. I don't know of a better one,
actually. Both you and he seem to be looking for one though, which I
gary, is it possible to be compatible to 3.8 too?
Not productively. We could have "if the PersistentReference
doesn't have the 3.9 stuff then just refuse to do a ConflictError"
but then that's no different that the keyreference 3.4 behavior.
Heh, actually, that's effectively the behavior we probably have
now for keyreference 3.5dev running against ZODB 3.8, since errors
in the conflict resolution will simply cause the resolution to
fail, and the 3.5dev changes would generate AttributeErrors
against ZODB 3.8 during conflict resolution.
So...it would be a bit of a lie to claim to be compatible with
3.8. The changes are useless without the 3.9 changes. But the
code *should* technically work with the same restrictions we have
now. That said, I don't really want to support the changes
...I could move the releases to our ZC download location, rather
than the zope.org one, if folks want...
i don't think that this is a good idea, for example our company
uses both of the download locations
Well, I can move it any number of places, but this does sound like a
hack, hiding the basic problem.
What's the problem? I'm happy to help, especially if it doesn't
take too much time, and you can wait a day or two.
ok, i think if another new feature is implemented in keyreference
and we want this feature for zodb3.8 we have to do a version
inbetween, so if you call this a 3.5 release, what should that
other version be? 3.6
I guess this is a problem. I certainly understand the story.
We (the community/dev mailing list) had said before that you needed
to start a new major version when you broke backwards compatibility.
I did not break backwards compatibility, I just depended on a new
feature of another package. The only answer I see to solve the story
you just told is to also say that you have to rev the major version
whenever you depend on the new feature of another package.
However, I am afraid that this would lead to ugly (and expensive to
maintain) if-else clauses in our software, or rapidly escalating
version numbers, and even maintaining multiple branches simultaneously.
Dependencies are precisely what is supposed to address this problem,
we use egg based releases and if you hardcode the zodb 3.9
dependency in setup.py we have to switch to zodb3.9 just because of
that package if we want to use a new feature of it
maybe i am anticipating here and it's best to make it zodb 3.8
compatible when we need a newer version of keyreference for some
reason. the problem with this is, that we (zope committers) can do
this, but another company may not be able to change the package.
- Jim is not available to comment right now, AFAIK. I'm sure he'll
have some thoughts here.
- For this particular problem, I wish my ZODB changes could go into
ZODB 3.8. As I mentioned in the commit message, the change includes
one bug fix for a potentially serious problem that could cause data
integrity issues; one new feature (more informative
PersisntentReferences) that supports an arguable
zope.app.keyreference bugfix (conflict resolution breaks with
persistent key references; and one feature (conflict resolution now
supports multi databases). Then I'd argue that the
zope.app.keyreference change could go into 3.4.
- Even if people agreed with me for the previous bullet, that doesn't
make this kind of problem go away.
- Also for this particular problem, I suppose I could remove the
dependency on ZODB 3.9 and add a test to show that it should still
"work" (as well as it did before at least) with ZODB 3.8 persistent
references. I'd really rather not, of course, but I can do it in the
next week and a half. I guess it would still be "3.5" but it
wouldn't depend on 3.9 (...except to actually have any improvements
My current opinion is that version numbers are the best solution of a
Zope3-dev mailing list