On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
Morning,
On 03/02/2010 07:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage regarding maintenance and release management. He gave the example of the "Bicycle Toolkit" (zope.component, zope.configuration, zope.interface).
-1
Uhh. -1 for what? -1 for pondering *something*? The note I took was a request for thinking about something. No *I'm* confused about stop energy.
Oh come on. No, it's not -1 to pondering something. It's -1 to the idea of "splitting the ZTK into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage regarding maintenance and release management." I suppose Martijn should have said something like: "I'm thinking of disagreeing with that idea." On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Marius Gedminas <marius@gedmin.as> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:06:18AM +0100, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Mittwoch 03 M�rz 2010 01:28:21 schrieb Chris McDonough:
On 3/2/10 2:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris McDonough<chrism@plope.com> wrote:
On 3/2/10 1:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
> Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK > into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage > regarding maintenance and release management. He gave the example > of the "Bicycle Toolkit" (zope.component, zope.configuration, > zope.interface).
-1
I don't know who "people" are, and I don't know who "they" are, and I don't know who broke what.
No one should have to extract anything from the ZTK, because, AFAIK, the ZTK isn't a distribution.
You've both successfully beaten any initiative out of me again. Well done. Full speed ahead.
Hmmm, interesting:
...
As anyone can see, "worker_thread" is not started often, which is not optimal. How could this be improved?
More positive feedback, less negative feedback.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Does Martijn and me disagreeing with an idea constitute negative feedback? Is disagreement not allowed? If so, that doesn't leave much room for discussion. Or is Chris' characterization of my disagreement with him as "beating" negative feedback. This seems more appropriate to me, but I'm not sure what you mean. Jim -- Jim Fulton
Hi, On 03/03/2010 04:56 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
Morning,
On 03/02/2010 07:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage regarding maintenance and release management. He gave the example of the "Bicycle Toolkit" (zope.component, zope.configuration, zope.interface).
-1
Uhh. -1 for what? -1 for pondering *something*? The note I took was a request for thinking about something. No *I'm* confused about stop energy.
Oh come on. No, it's not -1 to pondering something. It's -1 to the idea of "splitting the ZTK into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage regarding maintenance and release management."
I suppose Martijn should have said something like: "I'm thinking of disagreeing with that idea."
Here's what I saw this morning when writing that: - Note from the meeting that we maybe ponder something without giving specific directives/actions. - Direct "-1" with Martijn's opinion and his reasoning. - A response from Chris which has more elaborate thoughts. - Another response of Martijn refusing to argue about it. I'm puzzled and that's what I tried to express.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Marius Gedminas <marius@gedmin.as> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:06:18AM +0100, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Mittwoch 03 M�rz 2010 01:28:21 schrieb Chris McDonough:
On 3/2/10 2:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris McDonough<chrism@plope.com> wrote:
On 3/2/10 1:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Hi there, > > > Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK > > into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage > > regarding maintenance and release management. He gave the example > > of the "Bicycle Toolkit" (zope.component, zope.configuration, > > zope.interface). > > -1
I don't know who "people" are, and I don't know who "they" are, and I don't know who broke what.
No one should have to extract anything from the ZTK, because, AFAIK, the ZTK isn't a distribution.
You've both successfully beaten any initiative out of me again. Well done. Full speed ahead.
Hmmm, interesting:
...
As anyone can see, "worker_thread" is not started often, which is not optimal. How could this be improved?
More positive feedback, less negative feedback.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Does Martijn and me disagreeing with an idea constitute negative feedback? Is disagreement not allowed? If so, that doesn't leave much room for discussion.
Right. The whole "discussion culture" here on zope-dev needs some polishing - I guess we still haven't cooled down yet and haven't found a tone in which to talk to each other that doesn't result in somebody being annoyed every five minutes. An impression I also have is that we seem to default to negative feedback when we don't directly understand someone else's motivation or intention and would have to work hard in order to understand it better. I think that also cuts us off from having new people express ideas that might not be sketched out accurately. The state of the current discussion already seems to involve three people misunderstanding each other after three posts - at least that's how it looks to me - and not having the intention of trying to understand each others intentions. I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which actually overlaps with some of thoughts I had lately: organizing the currently 65 packages into categories where larger chunks of packages make sense of being used together to socially encourage re-use doesn't seem bad to me.
Or is Chris' characterization of my disagreement with him as "beating" negative feedback. This seems more appropriate to me, but I'm not sure what you mean.
Hmm. I do understand why Chris responded that way, I'm not sure it had to be in response to your post, but I guess that was because your post came in second, otherwise it may have hit Martijn (yet again). But also I'm not going to analyze Chris' feelings sitting over here in my room ... ;) 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
On 03/03/2010 06:58 PM, I cobbled the following sentence together:
I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which actually overlaps with some of thoughts I had lately: organizing the currently 65 packages into categories where larger chunks of packages make sense of being used together to socially encourage re-use doesn't seem bad to me.
I read that sentence a few times but it only became illegible *after* sending the post. Let me try again: I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which actually overlaps with some of the thoughts I had lately: grouping the 65 packages into chunks that are easier to keep in your head and to communicate to the outside world. 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
On 3/3/10 12:58 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
I think there is some relevant and important desire that Chris has which actually overlaps with some of thoughts I had lately: organizing the currently 65 packages into categories where larger chunks of packages make sense of being used together to socially encourage re-use doesn't seem bad to me.
Yay.
Or is Chris' characterization of my disagreement with him as "beating" negative feedback. This seems more appropriate to me, but I'm not sure what you mean.
Hmm. I do understand why Chris responded that way, I'm not sure it had to be in response to your post, but I guess that was because your post came in second, otherwise it may have hit Martijn (yet again). But also I'm not going to analyze Chris' feelings sitting over here in my room ... ;)
"There's no crying in software" really, how I feel is irrelevant. ;-) I do wish every mention of change or even something just marginally outside the scope of what is normally discussed here wouldn't be quite as immediately and thoroughly stomped upon. I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really independent of any discussion about the ZTK. - C
* 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configuration,event} the "bicycle repair kit" (note the absence of the word "zope"), with explicit documentation and a dedicated website really need the approval of the whole zope3 community. Or, better... I don't think anybody can block John Doe to pick up a random set of packages, give them a name and market them as a framework (or as a reusable set of libraries) as long as the name "zope" is not used. Am I wrong? It's free software, after all. Best regards, Fabio
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Fabio Tranchitella <kobold@kobold.it> wrote:
* 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configuration,event} the "bicycle repair kit" (note the absence of the word "zope"), with explicit documentation and a dedicated website really need the approval of the whole zope3 community.
Or, better... I don't think anybody can block John Doe to pick up a random set of packages, give them a name and market them as a framework (or as a reusable set of libraries) as long as the name "zope" is not used.
Am I wrong? It's free software, after all.
This thread is primarily for meta (aka flame) discussions. If you're going to discuss something technical, please start a separate thread. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton
On 3/3/10 2:06 PM, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
* 2010-03-03 19:59, Chris McDonough wrote:
I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configuration,event} the "bicycle repair kit" (note the absence of the word "zope"), with explicit documentation and a dedicated website really need the approval of the whole zope3 community.
Probably not. On the other hand, talking about the mechanics of how that might get done on this maillist seems pretty natural to me. The "whole Zope 3 community" isn't particularly massive.
Or, better... I don't think anybody can block John Doe to pick up a random set of packages, give them a name and market them as a framework (or as a reusable set of libraries) as long as the name "zope" is not used.
Am I wrong? It's free software, after all.
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? - C
* 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. Our points of view are totally different, and I suppose the first group of people fear that fragmentation can influence the quality and stability of the ZTK as a whole. In my opinion, we can only gain defining explicitly the bicycle repair kit if somebody is willing to maintain it (and I refer to documentation and marketing stuff, not code because it is already very stable). If this cannot be done with consensus on zope-dev, but a group of people is really interested in it, I don't think it can be or should be stopped and, TBH, I don't see how it can influence the ZTK. -- Fabio Tranchitella / Tranchitella Kft. http://tranchitella.eu 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 20:06, Fabio Tranchitella <kobold@kobold.it> wrote:
I wonder if calling zope.{interface,component,schema,configuration,event} the "bicycle repair kit" (note the absence of the word "zope"), with explicit documentation and a dedicated website really need the approval of the whole zope3 community.
No. But yes. If we are going to have subpackages, we should really agree on approximately which ones they are. But if somebody really feels that everybody else is wrong, he/she is of course right to do something like this anyway.
Am I wrong? It's free software, after all.
Yeah, but it's about what is right/wrong, not allowed/forbidden. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> wrote:
On 3/3/10 12:58 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
...
"There's no crying in software" really, how I feel is irrelevant. ;-)
Then why do you keep saying things like "You've both successfully beaten any initiative out of me again" or saying you're ideas are being "stomped" on. These are emotionally laden terms.
I do wish every mention of change or even something just marginally outside the scope of what is normally discussed here wouldn't be quite as immediately and thoroughly stomped upon.
Nobody "stomped" on anything. Some people expressed disagreement with the idea of managing parts of the ZTK separately. Our opinions matter too. In my post, I tried to emphasize areas of agreement. I certainly endorsed the idea that parts of the ZTK should be usable independently.
I think it would be useful to have a discussion about grouping some Zope bits along functional lines for marketing purposes. This is really independent of any discussion about the ZTK.
I don't think anyone objects to that. The objections were very specifically aimed at (change) management and especially testing. Jim -- Jim Fulton
participants (5)
-
Chris McDonough -
Christian Theune -
Fabio Tranchitella -
Jim Fulton -
Lennart Regebro