On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Tom Hoffman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'll take a risk by stating the obvious.
If there will continue to be a release schedule for "Zope 3, the
would reduce confusion to new users greatly to give the appserver
release a name
other than Zope.
Current name Proposed name
"Zope2" -> Zope
"Zope3, the libraries" -> Zope libraries
"Zope3 the appserver" -> Frobnozz
Isn't this release sort of the last of its kind, though? Kind of a
weird time for a name change
I've heard that rumored, but there's nothing indicating that in the
release announcement. There are forward looking statements in
there: "tarballs... for the last 3.4 series and probably for 3.5 as
well." I take this to mean that there's an intention to have a 3.5,
3.6, 3.7 release, etc, but past 3.5, the release won't be packaged
as a tarball. If this is the case, even if it's just for 3.5, it
would sure help reduce confusion to give this "release of
packages" (even if it's just a buildout and the KGS for that
release) a name other than "Zope".
Or if not, it would seem like there would be a better argument for
new approach having a new name than the old one.
I'm not sure which is "the new approach" and which is the "old one"?
I'm glad you brought this up. Some observations:
- I think the goal of these releases is less to provide an application
than to provide a possibly useful collection of some libraries. This
is similar to the Python standard library. Some people see
significant value in this. I believe that other web frameworks, like
TurboGears, also make releases that assemble a bunch of eggs, so
people can use their frameworks without having to download eggs from
- The new approach to making a release would be to create an egg-based
release, probably building on zc.sourcerelease.
Zope3-users mailing list