Benji York wrote:
Darryl Cousins wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:24 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think my next step is to fix some dependencies for Grok to hard
version numbers...

I think that this is a good thing. I recently gave myself quite a bit
grief with a careless bin/buildout which broke my application. To avoid
that I need to be more specific in (I haven't attempted it yet

Specifying versions should be done by the application (buildout for example), not If versions are put in they limit what others can do with the version requirements (e.g., relaxing them).

The problem with this approach is that everybody setting up an application will need to know a lot about version numbers. I like reuse. I don't want to expose, say, all users of Grok, to a lot of version numbers they need to set.

So, in case of Grok what we don't want is that everybody needs to hardcode all kinds of version numbers into their own buildout.cfg. *the same* version numbers, typically.

We'd want this list of version numbers to be maintained by the Grok developers instead. We could of course make our 'grokproject' tool generate the hardcoded dependencies for users, but that seems rather odd too. This means that if someone wants to update their grok-based application to a newer version of Grok (which requires a newer version of say,, they will still need to go in and edit their buildout.cfg. That sounds difficult to communicate and difficult to maintain.

In case of Grok, I think we do have such a central place: grok's If we hardcode version numbers there, there's no more need for people to start putting it in their buildout.cfg. It also means that if people require a newer version of a library that Grok also depends on, they will have to talk to the Grok developers and ask for an update. I think that may have good side effects: the grok developers can then first test with this updated library and after a new version of Grok is released, everybody will have the benefit of the newest version of the library.



Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to