On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
We have 100+ packages that make up what used to be distributed as
"Zope3". We have numerous more packages in svn.zope.org. Most of
them are developed, released and distributed individually. We like
to think this is a good thing (I certainly do). But currently we
have a bit of a chaos . It's not bad, but I fear without some
guidance, it'll get worse.
Christian Theune recently wrote a document  in which he outlined
how we should get to a development process and what topics it
should touch. This document is very hands-on and describes actions
that should be taken to reach these goals. I've taken the liberty
to jump ahead and write down some current practices:
This is a great start. Thanks!
A few small points:
- I'm going to mostly stay out of the style debate except to note
that the Zope style guide builds on PEP8. It doesn't disagree with
it much accept in the case of some naming, due to the fact that the
ZSG made a commitment before PEP8 did.
- On doctest, there should be greater emphasis on there being 2 kinds
of tests, executable documentation and other tests. I think there is
value in executable documentation, but it should be documentation
first. A lot of our doctests that we think/wish are documentation
are not very good documentation. We need to do a better job of this.
I do feel strongly that even non-documentation tests should be
written in a fairly literate way with documentation of the test
itself, I strongly prefer the doctest format for these tests, but I
don't want to be an evil dictator about it. I suggest that classic
unit tests can be used for new tests, but *only* if they are well
documented. I've never seen a classic unit test that was, but I'm
open to the theoretical possibility. :)
BTW, I've seen poorly documented doctests too.
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python
CTO (540) 361-1714
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Zope3-dev mailing list