Hi, Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought.... Andreas P.S. Zope 2.8.7 will be delayed so far for some days (until next weekend or so)
Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
I would be in favour of such a move, because as a Five developer I'm biased (so my vote doesn't really count, either). Either way, this would let us officially drop support for Five 1.0.x which we've neglected anyhow when it came to bugfixes, because it's just so unmaintainable. Plus, as Andreas mentions, most people are using Five 1.2 anyways because it provides the same featureset as the Five version shipping with Zope 2.9; that way people can make products that both on Zope 2.8 and 2.9. However, there are implications of this change. To give people an idea of what they're bargaining for, here are the changelog entries for the two most important changes between Five 1.0 and 1.2: * Zope 3-style i18n support has been provided. Apart from being able to register translations through ZCML, Five now lets Zope 2 ZPTs automatically use Zope 3 translation domains. Fallback to an old-style translation service (e.g. Localizer or PTS) is supported. This also includes the detection of preferred languages. See ``doc/i18n.txt`` for more information. * Event support: When ``<five:containerEvents/>`` is specified, Five makes the standard Zope 2 containers send events instead of using manage_afterAdd, manage_beforeDelete and manage_afterClone. These methods are still called for a class declared ``<five:deprecatedManageAddDelete class=.../>``, and are called in compatibility mode with a deprecation warning for classes that don't use this directive. These are two *features* that Five would introduce to the Zope 2 core (it did so for Zope 2.9 in fact because Five 1.3 is part of that). People should be aware of that and consider this in their vote. If we indeed decide to include Five 1.2 in Zope 2.8, we will have to fix it up a little so that it fits in nicely into the Zope 2 tree. I'll be happy to do that work. Philipp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27 Mar 2006, at 11:55, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
I would be in favour of such a move, because as a Five developer I'm biased (so my vote doesn't really count, either)
+1 Currently, CMF 1.6 depends on Zope >= 2.8.5 and Five 1.2. I'd much rather simplify that requirement to "Zope >= 2.8.7"... jens -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEJ8dMRAx5nvEhZLIRAgW7AKCoPb05oTOduDKnAZ3R4Pm314BBkgCdFXvz l3TnPwcR73rMabR69gUzvIE= =pdXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27 Mar 2006, at 11:55, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
I would be in favour of such a move, because as a Five developer I'm biased (so my vote doesn't really count, either)
+1
Currently, CMF 1.6 depends on Zope >= 2.8.5 and Five 1.2. I'd much rather simplify that requirement to "Zope >= 2.8.7"..
+1 here as well. Plone 2.5 depends on CMF 1.6 and thus has the same dependency issue. even worse, it supports both Zope 2.8 and Zope 2.9, so in some cases (Zope 2.8 setups) installing an additional version of Five is necessary, but in other cases (Z2.9) installing that version of Five will break everything. -r
+1 On 27. Mär 2006, at 07:35, Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier?
-- Anything that happens, happens. --Douglas Adams
On Mon, 2006-27-03 at 07:35 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
+1 -- Rocky Burt AdaptiveWave - Content Management as a Service http://www.adaptivewave.com Content Management Made Simple
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8). 2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO. - C On Mar 27, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
Andreas
P.S. Zope 2.8.7 will be delayed so far for some days (until next weekend or so)_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Chris McDonough wrote:
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8). 2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO.
Out of curiosity, what are the incompatibilities between Five 1.0 and 1.2/1.3 that hinder you from upgrading?
On Tue, 2006-28-03 at 08:58 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8). 2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO.
Out of curiosity, what are the incompatibilities between Five 1.0 and 1.2/1.3 that hinder you from upgrading?
I'd be extremely eager to know the answer to this myself as I've moved a few production sites from Five 1.0 to 1.2 without breaking any existing functionality. - Rocky -- Rocky Burt AdaptiveWave - Content Management as a Service http://www.adaptivewave.com Content Management Made Simple
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rocky Burt wrote:
On Tue, 2006-28-03 at 08:58 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
-1... Five 1.2 has quite a few differences from Five 1.0 that would stop products written for Five 1.0 from working properly. I've not gone to 2.9 on a few projects for this reason (sticking with 2.8). 2.9 is where the new version belongs, IMO.
Out of curiosity, what are the incompatibilities between Five 1.0 and 1.2/1.3 that hinder you from upgrading?
I'd be extremely eager to know the answer to this myself as I've moved a few production sites from Five 1.0 to 1.2 without breaking any existing functionality.
The point is that people who *want* Five 1.2 can have it, merely by installing it in their instance homes; folks who don't want to do the testing should not be required to assume risks on behalf of those who have a perfectly viable way to upgrade Five if they need it. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEKVzR+gerLs4ltQ4RAjIJAJ90/vTVLgnc+Mmx3ghZUnekSKI3gwCg1Mm8 hmxU6mVxjDqVdqIm1C89IMg= =7FyL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
Zope 2.8 ships/shipped with Five 1.0 which is very old and no longer actively maintained. Most ppl doing currently development with Zope 2.8 are using Five 1.2. Should we upgrade the Five version in Zope 2.8 to Five 1.2 to make their lives a bit easier? There is possibly a compatiblity problem involved and it is against the general rule for major upgrades of a package or product for a minor Zope release..I have no opinion on this issue...I just had this thought....
- -1. This is explicitly the kind of change which our branch policy is supposed to disallow: we have no way of knowing what kind of damage we will be inflicting on people's applications if we replace the version of Five they deployed against with a newer one. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEKVxw+gerLs4ltQ4RAjdAAKDRFs+4wghBklu0NM/iG02ePObI4ACgnsud 8VSdtUKqNxE2a87gTa9CRQY= =QK1B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--On 28. März 2006 10:55:29 -0500 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
- -1. This is explicitly the kind of change which our branch policy is supposed to disallow: we have no way of knowing what kind of damage we will be inflicting on people's applications if we replace the version of Five they deployed against with a newer one.
After *thinking* about the issue I follow the opinion of Chris and Tres that upgrading Five might be a bad idea Convinience in this case is not a reason to risk *any* backward compatibility issues. Sorry for bringing this issue but perhaps it was worth being discussed :-) Andreas
participants (9)
-
Alec Mitchell -
Andreas Jung -
Chris McDonough -
Jens Vagelpohl -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Rob Miller -
Rocky Burt -
Stefan H. Holek -
Tres Seaver