On 03/03/2010 09:43 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Fabio Tranchitella <kobold@kobold.it> wrote:
* 2010-03-03 20:41, Chris McDonough wrote:
Why wouldn't that be worked out here? Is it because you just want the mechanics of such a project done elsewhere without having to see it talked about on this maillist? Or is it because you disagree that it should be done? Or... what?
The main issue is related to the different use cases we have for the ZTK: some people use (or want to use) the ZTK as a monolithic set of packages that can be considered "somehow" the upgrade path from zope3 with the exclusion of zope.app.* (if possible).
Others (like me and you, Chris) see the ZTK as a set of core packages (mainly the bicycle repair kit, which is not the only self-contained subset of useful packages though) plus a huge load of dependencies we are bringing forward from the "old" zope3 releases.
Others, like me and Martijn and probably many many others, see the ZTK as a set of packages that can be used in various subsets and combination. We want as few dependencies as possible. We also want a configuration of versions that are known to work together because they are tested together. We want stability and we want processes that will help us move forward.
A thought that came up when reading this paragraph: another option restructuring/grouping to reduce the amount of packages may be to join smaller packages with weird boundaries into larger ones again. (Not that I suggest this to be an ultimate option, nor do I know from the top of my head any candidates for this, but we can keep that on the list of options we have.) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development