On 3/15/2010 4:49 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
If it is the case that a buildout should not have an egg-info directory, _and_ 
it is also the case that paster can't cope with committing a package to svn 
without one, then my instinct is to reject this issue as being a problem with 
paster and not an problem with zopeskel.

Thoughts from the gallery?

I prefer to see tickets which depend on upstream issues getting fixed left open.

If an upstream ticket is opened (and I don't think from what Ian tells me that any tickets opened with paster are going to get fixed unless we fix them), then that ticket could get referenced in the downstream ticket.

The reason I prefer this is because:

a) it encourages the proper cooperation between upstream and downstream,
b) it insures we don't forget about upstream problems,
c) it provides a better picture of the health of the downstream,
d) it keeps us honest.

I know a lot of people in Plone culture just want to see all bugs in their tracker closed. But I don't believe in closing them until they are fixed, whatever the reason. I don't have a problem with open issues that are open issues.

The ticket can simply document what the upstream problem is. By leaving it open with that documentation, it can provide a pointer to how to ultimately resolve the issue, should anyone be interested in doing so. Closing the ticket just makes it more unlikely paster will get fixed. I'm not saying keeping it open makes it more likely. It's just that closing it does make it less likely.

Also, this may be more of an abuse issue on our part. Paster was created to create eggs, not buildouts. It has a right to expect egg-info. This issue might be telling us something.


Chris Calloway
office: 332 Chapman Hall   phone: (919) 599-3530
mail: Campus Box #3300, UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC 27599

ZopeSkel mailing list

Reply via email to