Hi there, I just found out about this site: http://www.blueskyonmars.com/projects/paver/ I know that the author has used buildout in the past. He apparently decided to roll his own. I have no idea what the technical qualities of paver are. To get your attention, let me spell out a strongly worded and opinionated message nonetheless: zc.buildout is toast. It's on the way out now. Paver is going to compete it away and buildout is doomed to be a niche project only used by weird zope people. That's strongly worded. I'll admit it's drastically overstated. It's based on virtually no technical information! But that's exactly how many programmers will judge the projects: on community aspects, and not primarily technical. Paver has this in its favor: * Paver actually has a nice website that speaks to Python programmers of simplicity. zc.buildout has cheeseshop page with a lot of doctest documentation people have said was hard to understand. (including the author of paver!) * the author is well connected in the Python community. I'd say TurboGears and Pylons people are likely to go for Paver. * it's *already* showing up on programmer's sites like programming.reddit.com, where I just found it. Nobody bothers to link to buildout, as there's no easily digestable message about it available. So, I fear very much that this, or some other alternative, will wash away the undoubtedly more feature-rich and technically robust zc.buildout, if buildout doesn't present itself better. Without better presentation, fast, buildout is doomed to be a Zope-specific thing forever. You Can Save Buildout! So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got one. I'm not going to do it, but someone should. Just to be sure, I certainly *won't* be doing this. Jim won't either, and I don't expect it from him. Let him write great code, not make websites. So don't sit back and hope someone else will do it, as they won't. If nobody else can bother to step up, Paver probably deserves to win. If you're intereested, I think we already have a nice buildout for deploying grok.zope.org that can probably be adapted. The repoze people have a nice site too, so you could go ask there. Alternatively we start to figure out how to convert our buildouts to Paver. :) Regards, Martijn
From Kevin's blog
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribution-... (http://tinyurl.com/68sz6u) "The idea is to use zc.buildout's machinery, not reinvent it." On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
Hi there,
I just found out about this site:
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/projects/paver/
I know that the author has used buildout in the past. He apparently decided to roll his own.
I have no idea what the technical qualities of paver are. To get your attention, let me spell out a strongly worded and opinionated message nonetheless:
zc.buildout is toast. It's on the way out now. Paver is going to compete it away and buildout is doomed to be a niche project only used by weird zope people.
That's strongly worded. I'll admit it's drastically overstated. It's based on virtually no technical information! But that's exactly how many programmers will judge the projects: on community aspects, and not primarily technical.
Paver has this in its favor:
* Paver actually has a nice website that speaks to Python programmers of simplicity. zc.buildout has cheeseshop page with a lot of doctest documentation people have said was hard to understand. (including the author of paver!)
* the author is well connected in the Python community. I'd say TurboGears and Pylons people are likely to go for Paver.
* it's *already* showing up on programmer's sites like programming.reddit.com, where I just found it. Nobody bothers to link to buildout, as there's no easily digestable message about it available.
So, I fear very much that this, or some other alternative, will wash away the undoubtedly more feature-rich and technically robust zc.buildout, if buildout doesn't present itself better. Without better presentation, fast, buildout is doomed to be a Zope-specific thing forever.
You Can Save Buildout!
So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got one. I'm not going to do it, but someone should.
Just to be sure, I certainly *won't* be doing this. Jim won't either, and I don't expect it from him. Let him write great code, not make websites. So don't sit back and hope someone else will do it, as they won't. If nobody else can bother to step up, Paver probably deserves to win. If you're intereested, I think we already have a nice buildout for deploying grok.zope.org that can probably be adapted. The repoze people have a nice site too, so you could go ask there.
Alternatively we start to figure out how to convert our buildouts to Paver. :)
Regards,
Martijn
_______________________________________________ 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 )
Kent Tenney wrote:
From Kevin's blog
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribution-... (http://tinyurl.com/68sz6u)
"The idea is to use zc.buildout's machinery, not reinvent it."
I agree, it sounds like Kevin wants to take the best parts of zc.buildout and make something more complete. Assuming Paver matures, why not switch Zope to use Paver when it's ready? Shane
--On 22. April 2008 17:14:49 -0600 Shane Hathaway <shane@hathawaymix.org> wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:
From Kevin's blog
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribut ion-deployment-etc-of-python-projects/ (http://tinyurl.com/68sz6u)
"The idea is to use zc.buildout's machinery, not reinvent it."
I agree, it sounds like Kevin wants to take the best parts of zc.buildout and make something more complete. Assuming Paver matures, why not switch Zope to use Paver when it's ready?
You don't have to jump on any train just because it passes by. Competition is a good thing and having several alternatives for a particular problem is not bad by design. The basic problem within the Python community is the inflation of alternatives - I would call it also unnecessary inflation of alternatives). Unnecessary alternatives means: bad designed, bad implemented. Some examples: every week new tiny Python ORMs pop up (we have strong implementations like SQLALchemy, Storm, SQLObject), we have an inflation of zc.buildout recipes doing nearly the same (svn checkouts, executing command line commands). Andreas
Kent Tenney wrote:
From Kevin's blog
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribution-... (http://tinyurl.com/68sz6u)
Very interesting. I hadn't seen that. I wonder *how* it is using buildout's machinery. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:
From Kevin's blog
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2008/04/22/paver-and-the-building-distribution-...
Very interesting. I hadn't seen that. I wonder *how* it is using buildout's machinery.
Ah, the blog entry answers that question: "But, its support for the various libraries is quite shallow right now, and zc.buildout/virtualenv are not at all represented yet." I haven't thought about this deeply yet, but I actually see the declarative style that buildout enforces as an advantage. I've seen enough setup.py files with all kinds of custom Python hacks to try to make things work to be wary of such approaches. In addition, buildout makes you create recipes, and recipes are, at least in potential, reusable. Reusable things can help breed community. Snippets of Python don't breed community. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
You Can Save Buildout!
So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got one. I'm not going to do it, but someone should.
IMHO, we could feasibly fit this into http://zode01.lovelysystems.com/projects if someone wants to own the content and the Zope Foundation doesn't mind. If people prefer it to be separate, that'd be fine of course. I think it'd take: - a quick overview - an install guide - a couple of deeper examples - a few pages of documentation
Just to be sure, I certainly *won't* be doing this. Jim won't either, and I don't expect it from him. Let him write great code, not make websites. So don't sit back and hope someone else will do it, as they won't.
This is all too true and goes for the zope.org revitilisation efforts too. I've promised to help shepherd and provide infrastructure, but we need people to write content now. :)
If nobody else can bother to step up, Paver probably deserves to win. If you're intereested, I think we already have a nice buildout for deploying grok.zope.org that can probably be adapted. The repoze people have a nice site too, so you could go ask there.
The Paver site seems based on the doc generation thing that the new docs on python.org use.
Alternatively we start to figure out how to convert our buildouts to Paver. :)
I'd argue that the build system isn't quite as important as all that. We should ensure our packages work properly any setuptools-capable environment. Building and deployment will always be project-specific to a certain extent. However, I think we (including Plone) have a lot vested in zc.buildout and I think it is worth presenting it in the proper way. Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
The Paver site seems based on the doc generation thing that the new docs on python.org use.
Sphinx is the doc generation thing, it's really nice, takes ReST files and creates TOC, indexes, provides search, all from an attractive front page. If a tiny bit of markup was added to the existing ReST files in zc.buildout and massaged by Sphinx, the result would be useful and accessable doc.
Alternatively we start to figure out how to convert our buildouts to Paver. :)
I'd argue that the build system isn't quite as important as all that. We should ensure our packages work properly any setuptools-capable environment. Building and deployment will always be project-specific to a certain extent.
However, I think we (including Plone) have a lot vested in zc.buildout and I think it is worth presenting it in the proper way.
Martin
-- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
_______________________________________________ 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 )
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I just found out about this site:
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/projects/paver/
I know that the author has used buildout in the past. He apparently decided to roll his own.
I have no idea what the technical qualities of paver are. To get your attention, let me spell out a strongly worded and opinionated message nonetheless:
zc.buildout is toast. It's on the way out now. Paver is going to compete it away and buildout is doomed to be a niche project only used by weird zope people.
That's strongly worded. I'll admit it's drastically overstated. It's based on virtually no technical information! But that's exactly how many programmers will judge the projects: on community aspects, and not primarily technical.
Paver has this in its favor:
* Paver actually has a nice website that speaks to Python programmers of simplicity. zc.buildout has cheeseshop page with a lot of doctest documentation people have said was hard to understand. (including the author of paver!)
* the author is well connected in the Python community. I'd say TurboGears and Pylons people are likely to go for Paver.
* it's *already* showing up on programmer's sites like programming.reddit.com, where I just found it. Nobody bothers to link to buildout, as there's no easily digestable message about it available.
So, I fear very much that this, or some other alternative, will wash away the undoubtedly more feature-rich and technically robust zc.buildout, if buildout doesn't present itself better. Without better presentation, fast, buildout is doomed to be a Zope-specific thing forever.
You Can Save Buildout!
So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got one. I'm not going to do it, but someone should.
Our company (ZeOmega) is willing to volunteer to do this work. Jeff Rush, who presented a tutorial about Buildout in last PyCon will be helping us to create this site [1]. I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org I hope we can use ZF's server infrastructure for hosting, otherwise we can also provide it. BTW, we already started creating some content here: http://wiki.python.org/moin/buildout/ http://wiki.python.org/moin/buildout/newsite_notes [1] http://us.pycon.org/2008/tutorials/EggsRush/ Regards, Baiju M
Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:15PM +0530, Baiju M wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote: Our company (ZeOmega) is willing to volunteer to do this work. Jeff Rush, who presented a tutorial about Buildout in last PyCon will be helping us to create this site [1].
Cool!
I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org
I don't think we need to hide ourselfs. We're really good at making ourselves look bad already. The new site is intended to be able to do this. We shouldn't have to duplicate that effort. Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote: [snip]
I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org
I don't think we need to hide ourselfs. We're really good at making ourselves look bad already. The new site is intended to be able to do this. We shouldn't have to duplicate that effort.
Agreed, we shouldn't hide ourselves. I think *.python.org is a step too far. What I do think is that it's good to let projects that *do* stand on their own stand alone in their presentation as well. That's not about hiding ourselves, it's about giving the right impression to people. I think we can do this with buildout.zope.org, but if people can find a good top-level domain name then I'd certainly not want to stop them, as long as the affiliation with the Zope project is clear. This is mostly Jim's creation, after all, though I think the community-created recipes are something we should definitely showcase. We have a *lot* of features available through those recipes. Regards, Martijn
Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote: [snip]
I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org
I don't think we need to hide ourselfs. We're really good at making ourselves look bad already. The new site is intended to be able to do this. We shouldn't have to duplicate that effort.
Agreed, we shouldn't hide ourselves. I think *.python.org is a step too far. What I do think is that it's good to let projects that *do* stand on their own stand alone in their presentation as well. That's not about hiding ourselves, it's about giving the right impression to people.
True. Considering that the current zope.org effort hopefully won't die (when are we going to go live? Is there something like a check list or road map?)
I think we can do this with buildout.zope.org, but if people can find a good top-level domain name then I'd certainly not want to stop them, as long as the affiliation with the Zope project is clear. This is mostly Jim's creation, after all, though I think the community-created recipes are something we should definitely showcase. We have a *lot* of features available through those recipes.
Right. But this still sounds like those project should try to distance themselves from Zope. IMHO we should get the story right that stuff that comes out of the Zope world can be known as such and used even somewhere else. Moving to a different site is IMHO a workaround for us not having our general message be clear and understood. Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote: [buildout.org versus buildout.zope.org]
Agreed, we shouldn't hide ourselves. I think *.python.org is a step too far. What I do think is that it's good to let projects that *do* stand on their own stand alone in their presentation as well. That's not about hiding ourselves, it's about giving the right impression to people.
True. Considering that the current zope.org effort hopefully won't die (when are we going to go live? Is there something like a check list or road map?)
I'm not in charge of the zope.org project, but this is a good question. I've cc-ed Martin.
I think we can do this with buildout.zope.org, but if people can find a good top-level domain name then I'd certainly not want to stop them, as long as the affiliation with the Zope project is clear. This is mostly Jim's creation, after all, though I think the community-created recipes are something we should definitely showcase. We have a *lot* of features available through those recipes.
Right. But this still sounds like those project should try to distance themselves from Zope. IMHO we should get the story right that stuff that comes out of the Zope world can be known as such and used even somewhere else.
Moving to a different site is IMHO a workaround for us not having our general message be clear and understood.
I'm on the fence on this one. I think as long as the site *says* it's affiliated with the Zope project, the Zope community and the foundation, we're fine. You can argue both directions here: we might even *help* send the message to people that the Zope community is actually serious about providing stuff useful to outsiders. I propose we let the naming discussion rest for now given the arguments have been made. The most important thing is the creation of a website. Regards, Martijn
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote: [buildout.org versus buildout.zope.org]
Agreed, we shouldn't hide ourselves. I think *.python.org is a step too far. What I do think is that it's good to let projects that *do* stand on their own stand alone in their presentation as well. That's not about hiding ourselves, it's about giving the right impression to people.
True. Considering that the current zope.org effort hopefully won't die (when are we going to go live? Is there something like a check list or road map?)
I'm not in charge of the zope.org project, but this is a good question. I've cc-ed Martin.
As soon as we have content to cover at least the basics of each of our major projects (Zope 2, Zope 3, CMF, ZODB... and maybe zc.buildout)? Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm on the fence on this one. I think as long as the site *says* it's affiliated with the Zope project, the Zope community and the foundation, we're fine. You can argue both directions here: we might even *help* send the message to people that the Zope community is actually serious about providing stuff useful to outsiders.
I propose we let the naming discussion rest for now given the arguments have been made. The most important thing is the creation of a website.
Agreed. I still have the feeling we should spend time getting our story straight. For example: Why is "zc.buildout" a "Zope project"? The new site starts talking about the "Zope libraries" which people started getting confused about. When is something "Zope"? Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm on the fence on this one. I think as long as the site *says* it's affiliated with the Zope project, the Zope community and the foundation, we're fine. You can argue both directions here: we might even *help* send the message to people that the Zope community is actually serious about providing stuff useful to outsiders.
I propose we let the naming discussion rest for now given the arguments have been made. The most important thing is the creation of a website.
Agreed.
I still have the feeling we should spend time getting our story straight. For example: Why is "zc.buildout" a "Zope project"? The new site starts talking about the "Zope libraries" which people started getting confused about. When is something "Zope"?
My attempt at straightening the story is here: http://zode01.lovelysystems.com/projects If people disagree with that story, let's start a new thread and talk about it. Fast. I'm not sure zc.buildout really is a "Zope project" at all. It's a Jim project, not a Zope project. However, it is largely maintained and used by the Zope community and we may have a decent place to put it and give it at least its own logo and some documentation space. If someone wants to build a separate website for zc.buildout, then that'd be great, but if the new zope.org lowers the impedance, I'd be happy to have a folder for it there. :) Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote: [snip]
I still have the feeling we should spend time getting our story straight. For example: Why is "zc.buildout" a "Zope project"? The new site starts talking about the "Zope libraries" which people started getting confused about. When is something "Zope"?
That's a good question. It's probably a grey area. I think a project that: * associates itself with our community (or most developers are community members, etc) * maintains its software in svn.zope.org * is used widely by members of the community, and by other projects in our community probably a "Zope community project". Buildout qualifies here. The question is what the word 'community' means of course but this is good enough for me. Of course there are other Zope community projects that are *not* maintained in svn.zope.org. The question then would be whether this still can be supported by the Zope Foundation. Anyway, I'm not sure how produce it is to go into discussions like this either. I'd rather not distract people from actually producing useful websites. :) Regards, Martijn
Hey, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com> wrote: [snip]
Anyway, I'm not sure how produce it is to go into discussions like this either.
Um, 'productive', not 'produce'. :) Regards, Martijn
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:35PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[...good pointers...]
Anyway, I'm not sure how produce it is to go into discussions like this either. I'd rather not distract people from actually producing useful websites. :)
It's definitely not productive in the way that it will result in websites. ;) I'll try to get some input on the sprint next week and shut up until then, avoiding to distract people from from producing useful websites. Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Hey Christian, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:35PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[...good pointers...]
Anyway, I'm not sure how produce it is to go into discussions like this either. I'd rather not distract people from actually producing useful websites. :)
It's definitely not productive in the way that it will result in websites. ;)
I'll try to get some input on the sprint next week and shut up until then, avoiding to distract people from from producing useful websites.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. You ask good questions and you make good comments. I just keep repeating this as it's just too easy to get into a what color should the bikeshed be discussion about naming and meaning. I'm powerfully drawn to such discussions myself. :) Regards, Martijn
Hey, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:46:01PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. You ask good questions and you make good comments.
I just keep repeating this as it's just too easy to get into a what color should the bikeshed be discussion about naming and meaning. I'm powerfully drawn to such discussions myself. :)
I know you don't want to offend. I understand what you're trying to do and I'm not offended nor annoyed. Did my message imply that? Christian -- gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - ct@gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Hey Christian, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Christian Theune <ct@gocept.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:46:01PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. You ask good questions and you make good comments.
I just keep repeating this as it's just too easy to get into a what color should the bikeshed be discussion about naming and meaning. I'm powerfully drawn to such discussions myself. :)
I know you don't want to offend. I understand what you're trying to do and I'm not offended nor annoyed. Did my message imply that?
No, but I was making sure just in case. Regards, Martijn
Christian Theune a écrit :
True. Considering that the current zope.org effort hopefully won't die (when are we going to go live? Is there something like a check list or road map?)
I will be working on it for 3 days at the Paris sprint Hope I will succeed in doing something useful...
Right. But this still sounds like those project should try to distance themselves from Zope. IMHO we should get the story right that stuff that comes out of the Zope world can be known as such and used even somewhere else.
I personally think we *must* introduce buildout somewhere in zope.org, but if someone also build a more complete separate site (with potentially a queriable repository of recipes), it's ok, and even good. Christophe
Moving to a different site is IMHO a workaround for us not having our general message be clear and understood.
Christian
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Christophe Combelles <ccomb@free.fr> wrote: [snip]
I personally think we *must* introduce buildout somewhere in zope.org, but if someone also build a more complete separate site (with potentially a queriable repository of recipes), it's ok, and even good.
Oh, I agree, all our big sub projects should be presented on zope.org. If those subprojects have sites of their own, all for the better - we point to those. We need an entry point from the zope perspective, and about Zope the project and the community, but independent entry points for our larger community projects are welcome as well. Regards, Martijn
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote: [snip]
Our company (ZeOmega) is willing to volunteer to do this work. Jeff Rush, who presented a tutorial about Buildout in last PyCon will be helping us to create this site [1].
Great! [we already had some private communication about this]
I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org
I don't think python.org will be handing out subdomains, so I think we can forget about that. I'm fine with a domain name like buildout.org, and if the price is reasonable, I'm sure the Foundation can be approached for paying for it. We would like at least some reference back to "Zope" on it, but that's about it.
I hope we can use ZF's server infrastructure for hosting, otherwise we can also provide it.
All right, for the server infrastructure, Jens is setting it up. If you want a website set up, you'll have to follow his guidelines, as he wants to manage it carefully. Alternatively if it's more efficient for you, I don't think there's an objection to you hosting it, with the provision we'd like to reserve the right to be able to move it to the Foundation's hosting infrastructure at some point. Thank you *very* much for this initiative! Regards, Martijn
----- "Martijn Faassen" <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote: [snip]
Our company (ZeOmega) is willing to volunteer to do this work. Jeff Rush, who presented a tutorial about Buildout in last PyCon will be helping us to create this site [1].
Great! [we already had some private communication about this]
I think it is better not to associate Buildout with zope.org domain. So, either we can create a new domain www.buildout.org or if you all agree a subdomain of python.org : buildout.python.org
I don't think python.org will be handing out subdomains, so I think we can forget about that.
I'm fine with a domain name like buildout.org, and if the price is reasonable, I'm sure the Foundation can be approached for paying for it. We would like at least some reference back to "Zope" on it, but that's about it.
I hope we can use ZF's server infrastructure for hosting, otherwise we can also provide it.
All right, for the server infrastructure, Jens is setting it up. If you want a website set up, you'll have to follow his guidelines, as he wants to manage it carefully. Alternatively if it's more efficient for you, I don't think there's an objection to you hosting it, with the provision we'd like to reserve the right to be able to move it to the Foundation's hosting infrastructure at some point.
OK, we decided to go ahead with this work. And we will be using a subdomain of zope.org and it will be hosted using ZF server infrastructure. I will contact Jens once content and site is ready. Regards, Baiju M
Hi there, On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote: [snip]
OK, we decided to go ahead with this work. And we will be using a subdomain of zope.org and it will be hosted using ZF server infrastructure. I will contact Jens once content and site is ready.
Great! To prevent future deployment problems, could you tell Jens about what technology you intend to use for the site as soon as possible? We need to select something that both you and the community will be effective with. Plone 3 would be good as we already are deploying this for www.zope.org anyway, and grok.zope.org as well. We can take buildouts from those projects. Something like Sphinx to generate plain HTML pages from ReST might also be fine for a large part of the documentation; that'd involve just the publishing of static pages. We'll be exploring this for part of the Grok documentation eventually. Regards, Martijn
----- "Martijn Faassen" <faassen@startifact.com> wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote: [snip]
OK, we decided to go ahead with this work. And we will be using a subdomain of zope.org and it will be hosted using ZF server infrastructure. I will contact Jens once content and site is ready.
Great! To prevent future deployment problems, could you tell Jens about what technology you intend to use for the site as soon as possible? We need to select something that both you and the community will be effective with. Plone 3 would be good as we already are deploying this for www.zope.org anyway, and grok.zope.org as well. We can take buildouts from those projects.
Something like Sphinx to generate plain HTML pages from ReST might also be fine for a large part of the documentation; that'd involve just the publishing of static pages. We'll be exploring this for part of the Grok documentation eventually.
We will be using Sphinx for the site. It will require: 1. Python 2.4 2. Sphinx 3. docutils 4. Pygments Regards, Baiju M
Hey, On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Baiju M <mbaiju@zeomega.com> wrote: [snip]
We will be using Sphinx for the site. It will require:
1. Python 2.4 2. Sphinx 3. docutils 4. Pygments
Strictly speaking only the person who generates the documentation would need Sphinx, as I think it generates HTML that can be uploaded to the server, correct? So I assume to generate the HTML, you'd get a buildout that installs sphinx and pulls in zc.buildout as an external for its documentation (which we'd also want to use), and then have something that points sphinx to all the documents that we want to publish. Other documentation would be in the checkout directly. The whole documentation package can be maintained on svn.zope.org itself. Regards, Martijn
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jung -
Baiju M -
Christian Theune -
Christophe Combelles -
Kent Tenney -
Martijn Faassen -
Martin Aspeli -
Shane Hathaway