At 13:47 09-04-2002 -0400, Brian Lloyd wrote:
...I sent out a note a while ago now trying to scare up some ideas on how to vet the current list of 2.6 proposals and get to a final "plan". I didn't get much (any?) response :(
But there are still a lot of things on the proposed features that are undone, and some that are controversial enough that we need to get to closure on them.
Committed - Y/N whether the volunteers have committed to have the implementation and docs done by the first week
Vetted - Y / N whether the community and / or the relevant BDFLs have come to some agreement on whether it *should* be done. The list of items without a 'Y' will be our next
Hi: Both me and Myroslav Opyr <myroslav@zope.net.ua> are quite commited to do the proposed "Object Links/References". Although from the emails we exchanged with you, I would've guessed that it was one of the "controversial enough" to be a Vetted item :-) Anyways I'm commited to do it. I do agree with your argument about link semantics but, at least for me, a link/reference is a link, and the semantics are perfectly defined i.e its not a RedirectObject. As in Unix, a hard link has different semantics from a soft link. I'm thinking of the "hard link" semantics. C U! -- Mario Valente