Andrew Milton wrote:
> My position is that plenty of people use Zope 2 without plone, 

Your position appeared to be that it's a good idea to tempt new users 
into using "plain zope 2". I assert that it's not because zope.org is 
dead, the docs have barely changed in 7 years and, in a specific case, 
LocalFS has become unmaintained and doesn't work in current Zope 2 releases.

> | >I already maintain a lot of code, 
> | 
> | such as?
> 
> So you really don't go to zope.org.

That doesn't answer my question. What public code do you actively maintain?

> | >and I have my own LocalFS-type code so I 
> | >don't see the need to maintain a different one.
> | 
> | Then why not release this and advertise is as a maintained alternative 
> | to LocalFS?
> 
> Why bother? 

Because it's broken on current Zope releases and no-one is maintaining 
it, meaning every person who wants to use it has to individually patch 
it and maintain their own local copy.

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to