+-------[ Chris Withers ]----------------------
| Andrew Milton wrote:
| >+-------[ Chris Withers ]----------------------
| >| 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,
| >So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use
| No, my position if much simpler than that: Zope 2 is dying/dead, and new
| users shouldn't try and use it. Gmane's graph quite aptly demonstrates this:
| You asserted that this is not the case, I invited you to prove this by
| solving some of the problems that have come up for discussion. You have
| refused to do so. I think that speaks volumes.
Issuing a one line patch for LocalFS does not prove anything except that
I can make LocalFS work and put a tarball up for download. LocalFS
ultimately has nothing to do with Zope 2 user take up.
Writing all the docs for it likewise is a job better suited to the "many
authors" you claim to be around. And likewise proves nothing about the
state of Zope 2.
Perhaps, as I've said before, you should question The Zope Foundation on
what they're doing to promote Zope, to improve the documentation, to
maintain code that might be useful, but, have lost maintainers.
If you want a debate, learn to argue in a meaningful way, and stop just
whining about it.
Is the rate of take up of Zope 2 slowing? Yes probably.
Is the code base such that it's not suitable for production use? No.
Is the code base such that noone should use it all as you assert? No.
Feel free to provide something more substantial than mailing list volume
as an argument, before you insult all the people that still work on it
and with it.
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -