I don't think anyone has given much thought to actually documenting all
these nice nifty features in 2.9. Which is no change from the norm, and
it will be a fairly organic process again. I hate it, but whatever.
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:22, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:59:46AM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2005 8:48 AM, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dieter Maurer wrote:
> > > > When will they feature in *the* "Zope Book"?
> > >
> > > Which "The Zope Book" are you referring to?
> > >
> > > The 2.6 one on Zope.org?
> > > The 2.7 one on Plope.com?
> > > The 3.whatever one somewhere-I-don't-know?
> > I would expect it to be "featured", that is mentioned as a recommended
> > practice, in a Zope2.9 book, should one appear. I also thonk that with
> > 2.8 a 2.8 book should be released, which main feature could be to move
> > the ZClass part to an appendix.
> I would love that. But in the present day, we haven't even finished the
> 2.7 book. I suppose we could just change the book's release number from
> 2.7 to 2.8 and hope that's adequate ;-)
> But that leaves unanswered questions - should we document the Five stuff
> at all, and if so, how?
> The primary problem with the Zope Book is still the relative scarcity of
> resources (i.e. editors with time to work on it).
> The secondary problem with the Zope Book is that it's showing its age:
> the choice and organization of topics is IMHO less than ideal, but that
> can't be sufficiently addressed on a chapter-by-chapter basis, one needs
> to have a good overview of the whole project. This vastly increases the
> scope of the task.
> Sadly I can't see the status quo changing unless somebody wants to
> invest sufficient money in the project so that some of the independent
> contractors involved could schedule work on the book as an actual paying
> job. Hopefully one of two things will happen:
> * I will be proven wrong, or
> * such money will materialize somehow :-)
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -