Re: The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal
Andrew Milton wrote:
+-------[ Stephan Richter ]---------------------- | Hello everyone, | | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start | using the process for third party package development. | | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments | about it!
So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then check it into the svn respository.
Is this is correct?
No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc. I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree. I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it. I'm therefore still suggesting to divide up the proposal. Philipp
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andrew Milton wrote:
+-------[ Stephan Richter ]---------------------- | Hello everyone, | | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new | development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the adoption | of Zope 3 technologies in the wider Zope community, we should also start | using the process for third party package development. | | I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope | Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that implements | this process. The proposal is attached to this mail. I welcome any comments | about it!
So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation later), and then check it into the svn respository.
Is this is correct?
No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree.
I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it.
I'm therefore still suggesting to divide up the proposal.
+1 I specially like the ZSCP proposal. It is very similar to a project we are involved in, the EDOS project (www.edos-project.org). I strongly believe that it is a perfect match for the whole idea of having a component architecture in the first place. I also like the common repository idea, if it can provide the same level of QA functions we currently have at nuxeo (trac.nuxeo.org + buildbot.nuxeo.org), though I fear that Trac can't scale well to a project spanning several important subprojects (here scaling means providing both global views and by-project views of what's going on). However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be decoupled. S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be decoupled.
The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons: (1) Bandwidth. Discussing two proposals of this size separately requires a lot of time. (2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is to bring the sub-communities together and define communication means on the code level. (3) If the ZSCP is discussed in too much abstraction, it will distance itself from what we can and want to do. While writing I have always used the Common Repository as reality check. (4) If the two were talked about separately, I think we would go back and forth on what information and process is needed. Right now, with the Common Repository in mind, I know exactly that the steps of the ZSCP will work. Overall, once we have a general agreement, section 2 will be lifted out of the proposal anyways to represent the first set of rules for the ZSCP. This document is proposal not just the rules. BTW, I am sorry for the confusion. I should have documented this better. I know I had in the earlier version, but it must have got lost. I have now added a section right at the beginning of section to communicate the separation better. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Stephan Richter wrote:
(2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is to bring the sub-communities together and define communication means on the code level.
I don't think it will stay dead, because it is really exciting :) S. -- Stéfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a* repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
Correct.
I had earlier suggested to Stephan that we should keep the common repository separate from ZSCP and there out of this proposal. IMO there should be a separate proposal for the common repository. I guess he didn't agree.
I did agree that the two were too intermingled and thus clearly separated them. However, I personally do not have the resources to push two separate proposals on this, since I think the two are so closely related; in fact at the beginning I thought of them as one. If the common repository would not be part of the proposal, I would feel that people would dismiss it as "nice to have, but it ain't gonna happen". It is very important to me that we will be able to implement the process quickly and get on our way certifying packages.
I think both the ZSCP and the common repository (in the context of the ZF) are a great idea. We should try to have as much stuff as possible in the common repository, but we shouldn't make the process dependent on it.
Correct. The latest revision clearly separates the two. To show their independence, I have (a) placed the two subjects into two separate main sections, (b) made sure that none of section 2 (ZSCP) requires anything from section 3 (the repository), and (c) made sure that the process does not depend on Open Source licenses or information that would only be known in public projects. I have spent a lot of time trying to be *very careful* rereading the sections over and over again. If you find that anything in the document contradicts those 3 points above, let me know! I am very interested in fixing those type of "bugs"! :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
participants (3)
-
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Stefane Fermigier -
Stephan Richter