Andreas Jung wrote:

--On Dienstag, 5. April 2005 16:38 Uhr -0400 Jake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And that is probably the best arguement for keeping them around longer.

We should get to the point: if some people depend on ZClasses then they should
take over some responsibility in maintaining them in future releases.

Be careful here. While there is value in deciding priorities based on willingness of people to help. We want people to use Zope *even* if they can't maintain it.

It would be a huge mistake to gibe people the impression that they should only
use Zope if they are prepared to maintain it themselves.

In other words, the availability of volunteers is a good criteria for
selecting *new* features.

> It
can not be
that a "feature" regarded as obsolete (from the majority) and almost unmaintained and
untouched since ages holds up further releases.

It is being maintained now. I don't think we can choose not to maintain such an important feature. I agree that new features should only be done of there are developers willing to do them.

> I agree with Jim that
they should be
officially deprecated - means they could be removed in Zope 2.10.

Whoa, I'm not advocating that. I was asking if anyone cared. I strongly suspected that there would be people who did care.

I've gotten a lot of grief because of the effort I've been putting into
getting them to work with Zope 2.8 and the effect that that has had
on the 2.8 schedule.  Many active Zope developers are (understandbly)
dismissive of ZClasses, but I think we can't ignore the many people
who depend on them.


Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714
Zope Corporation
Zope maillist -
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to