On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a*
> repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example
> the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
> I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common
> repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there
> should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he
> didn't agree.
I did agree that the two were too intermingled and thus clearly separated
them. However, I personally do not have the resources to push two separate
proposals on this, since I think the two are so closely related; in fact at
the beginning I thought of them as one.
If the common repository would not be part of the proposal, I would feel that
people would dismiss it as "nice to have, but it ain't gonna happen". It is
very important to me that we will be able to implement the process quickly
and get on our way certifying packages.
> I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the
> ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in
> the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it.
Correct. The latest revision clearly separates the two. To show their
independence, I have (a) placed the two subjects into two separate main
sections, (b) made sure that none of section 2 (ZSCP) requires anything from
section 3 (the repository), and (c) made sure that the process does not
depend on Open Source licenses or information that would only be known in
I have spent a lot of time trying to be *very careful* rereading the sections
over and over again. If you find that anything in the document contradicts
those 3 points above, let me know! I am very interested in fixing those type
of "bugs"! :-)
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-users mailing list