*looks at the date* *sigh* I'll go back to my cave now... Chris Chris Withers wrote:

Tres Seaver wrote:

...

On behalf of the Zope community, I am pleased to announce the creation of the "Zope 4.0" project. After extensive discussion with the Zope wizards in conclave at PyCon 2009, the new project's website has been launched:

http://zopefour.org/

Er?

Little more context and explanation please...

Chris

-- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Remember this: | Seriously, how do people feel about this? You can do anything you want with your time... who are we to judge? d8) -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Chris Withers wrote:

Remember this:

http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/04/01/parrot.htm

Well, that lead to this:

http://www.parrot.org/

One of the reasons I got suckered into replying was that I thought this might be the result of some stuff a few of us had talked about at the Zope BOF at PyCon.

I actually think having a 4.0 release of Zope that unifies things could be used to make things a lot clearer...

- Zope Framework 4.0

What Martijn has announced and is already being worked on extensively.

- Zope A 4.0

What was to be Zope 2.12

- Zope B 4.0

Whatever the next pending release of the Zope 3 appserver stuff was to be. (Need to keep the Canonical and ZC guys happy afterall ;-) )

www.zope.org could then just be a radically cut down link portal to a.zope.org, b.zope.org and framework.zope.org, which I'd imagine to be brochurewear, download and/or KGS sites for each of the above.

I'd suggesting splitting the svn access stuff out to dev.zope.org because it transcends all three.

docs.zope.org could hoover up the rest, with any remaining stuff being humanely dispatched.

Seriously, how do people feel about this?

I don't think we need A&B. Maybe just "Zope" and "Zope Framework". I like the idea of using a number larger than 3. (I've suggested 5 in the past.) Overall +1. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation

On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Chris Withers wrote:

Jim Fulton wrote:

...

...

What Martijn has announced and is already being worked on extensively.

- Zope A 4.0

What was to be Zope 2.12

- Zope B 4.0

Whatever the next pending release of the Zope 3 appserver stuff was to be. (Need to keep the Canonical and ZC guys happy afterall ;-) )

www.zope.org could then just be a radically cut down link portal to a.zope.org, b.zope.org and framework.zope.org, which I'd imagine to be brochurewear, download and/or KGS sites for each of the above.

I'd suggesting splitting the svn access stuff out to dev.zope.org because it transcends all three.

docs.zope.org could hoover up the rest, with any remaining stuff being humanely dispatched.

Seriously, how do people feel about this? I don't think we need A&B. Maybe just "Zope" and "Zope Framework".

Unfortunately, as we discovered at the BOF, and what is currently a significant cause of confusion, is that the "Zope" bit isn't just one thing, we basically have two app-server projects named Zope right now:

- Zope 2

Used by Plone, and a few die-hard stragglers and unfortunate passerby's who get sucked in by the rubbish on www.zope.org

- Zope 3

Use by Canonical for Launchpad and (well, was suspected anyway) by ZC. I'm sure there are more.

We and canonical use the Zope Framework. We don't use an application. Zope (aka Zope 2) is an extensible application. We (ZC and Canonical and others) assemble components from the Zope Framework to build our own applications. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Jim Fulton wrote: | > We and canonical use the Zope Framework. We don't use an | > application. Zope (aka Zope 2) is an extensible application. We (ZC | > and Canonical and others) assemble components from the Zope Framework | > to build our own applications. | | Hmm, maybe I got this wrong, but Gary Poster expressed a strong concern | that "zope 3 the app server" needed to keep living. | | I do think the name "Zope" should never be used on its own again. | | I think "Zope Classic" would certainly work for "Zope 2 the app server", | it conveys the right things: | | - mature | - stable | - maybe not the best choice for new development. ^ for you -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote: | >| - mature | >| - stable | >| - maybe not the best choice for new development. | > ^ for you | | Indeed, but "classic" doesn't have any "bad" connotations as far as I'm | concerned, and it'll need to keep living as long as Plone relies on it, | which will be forever... Plenty of people use it without plone. You might want to crawl out of the vacuum you live in. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote: | >| Indeed, but "classic" doesn't have any "bad" connotations as far as I'm | >| concerned, and it'll need to keep living as long as Plone relies on it, | >| which will be forever... | > | >Plenty of people use it without plone. You might want to crawl out of | >the vacuum you live in. | | Yes, and I'm one of them, but I don't think it's fair to try and tempt | new users into it... | | I'm happy to be proven wrong by you writing lots of decent docs, picking | up maintenance of zope.org and LocalFS ;-) You're good at volunteering people to do work. I already maintain a lot of code, and I have my own LocalFS-type code so I don't see the need to maintain a different one. If I was using it, I would happily take it over, in the same way I've given my code over to other people to maintain. As for docs, an army of people continually volunteer on #zope to update the zope book. Given my other contributions to Zope society, there are people far better suited to writing technical documentation than I. I'm happy to be a knowledge resource for anyone wanting to update the existing book / write a new freely available document. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote: | >| >Plenty of people use it without plone. You might want to crawl out of | >| >the vacuum you live in. | >| | >| Yes, and I'm one of them, but I don't think it's fair to try and tempt | >| new users into it... | >| | >| I'm happy to be proven wrong by you writing lots of decent docs, picking | >| up maintenance of zope.org and LocalFS ;-) | > | >You're good at volunteering people to do work. | | I'm not volunteering anyone, I'm saying that if you want to stick by | your position then you need to be the one to prove it's true. My position is that plenty of people use Zope 2 without plone, and "I need" to prove that, by writing the docs and maintaining the zope.org community resource owned by The Zope Foundation and by usurping the control of 3rd party software? I'm not sure of how exactly that proves my point. In fact it sounds like *you* want something done, but, aren't willing to do it yourself. Oh I already made that point. | >I already maintain a lot of code, | | such as? So you really don't go to zope.org. | >and I have my own LocalFS-type code so I | >don't see the need to maintain a different one. | | Then why not release this and advertise is as a maintained alternative | to LocalFS? Why bother? LocalFS seems to be sufficient for what people use it for, and other people are looking after it. | >would happily take it over, in the same way I've given my code over to | >other people to maintain. | | You mean code you've stopped maintaining? ;-) Yes it's a bit pointless to hand over the code I'm still maintaining. | >As for docs, an army of people continually volunteer on #zope to update | >the zope book. | | ...and then don't follow through on it. Welcome to the Bazaar. | >Given my other contributions to Zope society, | | ... | | >I'm happy to be a knowledge resource for anyone wanting to update the | >existing book / write a new freely available document. | | A safe offer to make given the number of authors we have floating around ;-) You can't have it both ways. We have plenty of authors, but, no docs. So why bother a non-author with stupid non-sequiturs? -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote: | >My position is that plenty of people use Zope 2 without plone, | | Your position appeared to be that it's a good idea to tempt new users | into using "plain zope 2". I assert that it's not because zope.org is | dead, the docs have barely changed in 7 years and, So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any better. Perhaps the people deprecating and removing interfaces willy-nilly should document the replacements and how to change over existing consumers of the removed interfaces, or re-implement the removed interfaces using "the new way." These are all issues for The Zope Foundation to address, not for you to badger individuals who don't agree with your dogma-de-jour. Badger the people responsible to do something. Better still start a project and ask for help, you'll certainly get further than trying to order around other people to do what you want. | in a specific case, | LocalFS has become unmaintained and doesn't work in current Zope 2 releases. Lots of perfectly stable, very useful Products fall into this category from 2.10/11 onwards. I suppose in your new self-appointed role of wtf you think you are, you'll attempt to randomly assign new maintainers for all that code too. | >| >I already maintain a lot of code, | >| | >| such as? | > | >So you really don't go to zope.org. | | That doesn't answer my question. What public code do you actively maintain? It does (for Zope related code) if you bothered to look, but, as is all too obvious in most of your emails YOU don't want to DO anything. | >| >and I have my own LocalFS-type code so I | >| >don't see the need to maintain a different one. | >| | >| Then why not release this and advertise is as a maintained alternative | >| to LocalFS? | > | >Why bother? | | Because it's broken on current Zope releases and no-one is maintaining | it, meaning every person who wants to use it has to individually patch | it and maintain their own local copy. You're the one with the bug up their arse about it, YOU fix it and release it, or stfu about it. You could have completely rewritten it in the time it took you to write all these pointless emails. I don't use LocalFS, I'm not going to try to maintain it. As for the other code, that's not code I want to release as Open Source. Since you're more than capable of maintaining LocalFS, you seem to be up in arms about it, you're making more noise than anyone else, time to put up or shut up. Contact the maintainer, ask to take it over, gather the patches, get it working, make a release, maintain it. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote: | >+-------[ Chris Withers ]---------------------- | >| Andrew Milton wrote: | >| >My position is that plenty of people use Zope 2 without plone, | >| | >| Your position appeared to be that it's a good idea to tempt new users | >| into using "plain zope 2". I assert that it's not because zope.org is | >| dead, the docs have barely changed in 7 years and, | > | >So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use | >it. | | No, my position if much simpler than that: Zope 2 is dying/dead, and new | users shouldn't try and use it. Gmane's graph quite aptly demonstrates this: | | http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.general | | You asserted that this is not the case, I invited you to prove this by | solving some of the problems that have come up for discussion. You have | refused to do so. I think that speaks volumes. Straw Man. Issuing a one line patch for LocalFS does not prove anything except that I can make LocalFS work and put a tarball up for download. LocalFS ultimately has nothing to do with Zope 2 user take up. Writing all the docs for it likewise is a job better suited to the "many authors" you claim to be around. And likewise proves nothing about the state of Zope 2. Perhaps, as I've said before, you should question The Zope Foundation on what they're doing to promote Zope, to improve the documentation, to maintain code that might be useful, but, have lost maintainers. If you want a debate, learn to argue in a meaningful way, and stop just whining about it. Is the rate of take up of Zope 2 slowing? Yes probably. Is the code base such that it's not suitable for production use? No. Is the code base such that noone should use it all as you assert? No. Feel free to provide something more substantial than mailing list volume as an argument, before you insult all the people that still work on it and with it. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

+-------[ Dieter Maurer ]---------------------- | Andrew Milton wrote at 2009-4-11 21:46 +1000: | > ... | >So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use | >it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any | >better. Perhaps the people deprecating and removing interfaces willy-nilly | >should document the replacements and how to change over existing consumers | >of the removed interfaces, or re-implement the removed interfaces using | >"the new way." | > | >These are all issues for The Zope Foundation to address, not for you to | >badger individuals who don't agree with your dogma-de-jour. Badger the | >people responsible to do something. | | The people driving the Zope Foundation are (mostly) unfortunately heavily in | favour of what they call "cleaning up code" and removing backward | compatibility.... Yes the "improve with axe" methodology has never worked in any other project, I don't know why anyone thinks Zope2 would be different. I can see having to write a "shim" product to get existing code to keep working until there's time to fix it all. -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au

Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:

.... @Dieter: participate or be silent.

I do not obey your orders. You are Zope 2 release manager and part of the Foundation board -- but you do not have command power over things outside the Zope 2 release management and the foundation. Thus, I will participate in the way I have participated so far (i.e outside the circles controlled by the current Zope developers). And I will not be silent but continue to criticize tendencies that make Zope a less reliable platform for long living applications. -- Dieter

- Chris, I rarely agree with you but I actually like your fearless and provocative bashing for the sake (hopefully) of stirring up some action. - Andreas, you've done a great job with Zope but let's raise the bar and not pass judgement on peoples opinions (especially not my personal hero Dieter :) - Andrew, I agree with very much of what you say. Just because Zope2 has flaws doesn't mean we should trash and burn it. - Dieter, glad to hear it wasn't just me who had problems "keeping up" with the backwards incompatible improvements. You seem like a guy who's more in it for the results than the method. Long live DTML! 2009/4/13 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 13.04.2009 6:29 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:

...

Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:

...

.... @Dieter: participate or be silent.

I do not obey your orders.

You are Zope 2 release manager and part of the Foundation board -- but you do not have command power over things outside the Zope 2 release management and the foundation.

Thus, I will participate in the way I have participated so far (i.e outside the circles controlled by the current Zope developers). And I will not be silent but continue to criticize tendencies that make Zope a less reliable platform for long living applications.

As an open-source community we must not accept counter-productive and destructive participation.

Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkni620ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYylGQCgucaj2Sx1UsPjRRp2ugJJx2DP /aUAnixLmfZCl7ZDYY7uOUwrItcqmHVX =g85K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  ** (Related lists -  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

-- Peter Bengtsson, work www.fry-it.com home www.peterbe.com hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com

Now that HighSpeedRails is closing down at midnight tonight, does anyone have any low-cost suggestions for hosting a handful of low-traffic domains in a single Zope?? Thanks -Allen

Check out aclark.net . I have been very pleased with the service and quick responses to my requests. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Allen Schmidt Sr. < aschmidt@fredericksburg.com> wrote:

Now that HighSpeedRails is closing down at midnight tonight, does anyone have any low-cost suggestions for hosting a handful of low-traffic domains in a single Zope?? Thanks -Allen

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

-- David Bear College of Public Programs at ASU 602-464-0424

This kind of actitude is what doing me and other like me stop to participate to this list and I hope soon left Zope as a good tool without future Andreas your actutide and your way make some of others seek at other technologies Is you who could be silent if you can't be gentle You think that you are God but you are only one as others, I don't see why your opinion is better thant Dieter's or mine or other's The real thing is that you and other like you are killing Zope community, take note, man You need some listening course. Here we are human beings not machines like you who know everything and never make mistakes Sorry, man, we make mistakes and we sometimes seem stupid, in spanish we said: quien tiene boca se equivoca (who have mouth make mistakes) I appreciate your help everysingle time you give me but if it's needed to hear you saying how wrong I am or how stupid I am... 2009/4/13 Dieter Maurer <dieter@handshake.de>

Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:

...

.... @Dieter: participate or be silent.

I do not obey your orders.

You are Zope 2 release manager and part of the Foundation board -- but you do not have command power over things outside the Zope 2 release management and the foundation.

Thus, I will participate in the way I have participated so far (i.e outside the circles controlled by the current Zope developers). And I will not be silent but continue to criticize tendencies that make Zope a less reliable platform for long living applications.

-- Dieter _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

-- Mis Cosas http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito Zope Smart Manager http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito/670

Did you think that I'm considering myself part of these comunity? Since the first time I wrote here you are telling me that I'm wrong even if you don't know a word of what I'm doing Did you think that I have good opinion about Zope, at this time, to contribute? I make a contribution that no one except Tim Nash make any kind of comment (thanks again Tim!) By now I only use Plone at work for money not for passion and I make things by money or by passion What kind of contribution do you think someone needs to do to be respected? Something that you think it was useful or something that the contruibutor thinks it was? Perhaps if you know how to hear you could think that ZSM (or other products) will be interessat for the Zope community But you choose what you choose This is what do open source big: you could be agree with a community or you can make your own way I choose the tools I'm using because they are great ideas AND has a good people how wants to help and wants to be a community Zope is a great idea, with people how wants to help except when they don't understand what are you doing and you don't say nothing about the future of your investment (and yes we are investing like you our time and money with something that you create, we are confiding our lives to you movements. Perhaps in other communities they think that this is quite important) do you want that everyone contribute here? Well, respect us and don't think we are as stupids to talk to us like you are 2009/4/13 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 13.04.2009 14:28 Uhr, Garito wrote:

...

The real thing is that you and other like you are killing Zope community, take note, man

Before you make such nonsense statements, please step up and show your engagement in the Zope community e.g. by contributing to it. There are lots of low hanging fruits for showing your engagement e.g. the Zope 2 relaunch project (announced and blogged several times about it). People having expectations like there will be some dorks doing the dirty community work like maintaining software and websites can kill a community.

Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAknjh2IACgkQCJIWIbr9KYy/iQCdFl/DnX4DyhkfCcqX7JAVM1ht XMQAn1LWRP590dfzB50UvtVtoJSGe3P2 =c66e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Mis Cosas http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito Zope Smart Manager http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito/670

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14.04.2009 2:18 Uhr, Tim Nash wrote:

Andreas, please keep up the great work but take a break every now and then. I appreciated your advice, but not that email because you clearly weren't just "joking", it was the only private email you have ever sent me (other than a *shrug*). You are a representative of Zope, please "raise the bar" as Peter says.

*shrug* - I will hold on to my concept that things in the Zope world only happen when you actually do it yourself. And I have to repeat very clear: only those who participate can steer and influence the Zope development. Ongoing ranting without participation is discouraging and leading to ignorance and deafness. People throwing stones should consider that they are sitting in the same glasshouse. This thread is closed. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknkNZYACgkQCJIWIbr9KYxiyACfXYXMfB4f+6uhKTaGqAlzVvnV BIgAoK/VeWi7vJUnsNlfXEKnyo1VgG3C =jJk5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Well, Andreas, I think you don't understand that I'm in the process to left behind Zope as my application framework, again you don't read what I write you properly (the same problem again and again and again and again...) 2009/4/14 Andreas Jung <lists@zopyx.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 13.04.2009 22:15 Uhr, Garito wrote:

...

do you want that everyone contribute here? Well, respect us and don't think we are as stupids to talk to us like you are

Very encouraging for continuing my Zope 2 relaunch project. You are once again throwing stones at people doing the work for you and the community.

- -aj -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAknkML0ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyxNgCguebp/awnKpJGxrHg/wcuDoiJ 8rsAnipQ3B2IZb8BZeJjL74oPCGFwA8/ =9eOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Mis Cosas http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito Zope Smart Manager http://blogs.sistes.net/Garito/670

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13.04.2009 6:46 Uhr, Dieter Maurer wrote:

Andreas Jung wrote at 2009-4-12 09:52 +0200:

...

... @Dieter: participate or be silent. You are member of the Zope community for years, you are member of the Zope Foundation as a committer member. Such statements are at most laughable based on your record of your active contributions to the Zope community and the active participation within the Zope community.

In a private email, Andreas has threadened to exclude me from the Zope mailing lists -- apparently to get me silent forcefully when I do not obey.

Learn to read and translate. The German text says that some committer are no longer interested in your ongoing ranting. In fact I tried to explain to other committers to take you as you are for a very long time. But the patience is over at some point. And the message does not contain any thread from MY side about throwing you from the list. I only said that I would no longer veto against it.

For me, this looks like dictatorship tendencies start to grow and are soon embracing censorship. Re-read what Jens wrote some time ago about "Only those who participate".

Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkni6kYACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyoEgCg6NT5gtLgorxpx54SqadM+/E5 NUIAoLUdQbiQQq5wxOplV5OE2fCeaPad =B1yM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13.04.2009 11:56 Uhr, Kees de Brabander wrote:

...

For me, this looks like dictatorship tendencies start to grow and are soon embracing censorship.

There is neither dictatorship nor censorship. Only those that participate and contribute in an active way to the Zope community (there are lots of possibilities) can steer and take influence. An open-source project is neither a dictatorship nor democracy nor an anarchy - a project lives from what each community member contributes to it. The only purpose of measures appearing as dictatorship is bringing the project forward. Obviously it seems to be unpopular taking over the ruder in the same cases but it seems to be the only chance keeping thing going. If you are interested in the future of Zope then please accept that some people drive the project forward. We don't like being shot into the back from the community for taking over responsibility. We all accept critic - as long as it is constructive. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknjj+oACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyTGQCgzrCzkaX2yx8B+6aeghY9NiaK bHwAnjcNNfYZmNK6et8cC6E+mZHzYG/g =KD6A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13.04.2009 21:00 Uhr, Kees de Brabander wrote:

First, I wrote something completely different.

Sorry, appearently I made a mistake in quoting the postings.

Second, it seems to me that, in the end, an open source project like zope proves its reason for existence by the number of people using it, and not by the number of people contributing (though if I could, I would be delighted to contribute).

People won't use a software appearing dead. So it lives from contributions and further development.

Fourth, what is meant by 'constructive' and who decides that?

Constructive critic shows up alternatives, critic formulated as a rant does not. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknjm3cACgkQCJIWIbr9KYwZzACglaPx+DBPSz0vlfqm1hbYrBwE EtAAnj8nMPNGSJjb8lm8MCLFSXjif+M3 =qwC8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13.04.2009 11:33 Uhr, robert rottermann wrote:

Hi there, this is an email I wanted to write for several times in the past.

I find it very sad, that grown up people that are extremely knowledgeable and the source of lots of incredibly helpful advice *nobody* else seems to be able or willing to give, contributers of a wealth of tools the whole zope community would be worse off without, do not have the the *maturity* to withheld their personal animosity.

This is not about personal animosity - this is soley about contributing to Zope. It is highly discouraging for the small number of people that currently maintain Zope 2 and work on the next Zope release having to read Zope being a dictatorship and getting accused subliminally doing most things wrong by a highly skilled contributor constantly refusing making contributions to the Zope core or taking over initiative or showing responsiblity within the Zope community. Such comments and allegations are not adequate when you have in mind that people like Hanno, Lennard and myself spend a lot of personal and company time and money visiting conferences, sprints in order to discuss and work things out. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAknjg40ACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyMBACfXDUVCK6rl9PduYF9q6vJ2j3R W+MAoOxOFZYMIAkx/VHEISFa6EhFBzX0 =SQIO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Andreas Jung wrote:

Andrew & others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the related subprojects. The current zope.org site should be moved to old.zope.org (it must remain available for the time being (with URL redirections to the Products and Member area).

Why does it need to keep living even at old.zope.org? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Andrew Milton wrote:

| Why does it need to keep living even at old.zope.org?

Why do you care if it does?

Because someone needs to look after the (rather large, ancient and crufty) zope instance in which it lives, and it keeps on tripping up innocent passers-by. I don't think many of these passers by will be put off by the old.zope.org url and we'll still end up with people wondering why LocalFS doesn't work in Zope Classic 4.0 ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Andreas Jung wrote:

Because we can't break existing download URL - neither to old Zope releases

I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org...

nor to old product releases.

I wonder how many of these are actually safe to use nowadays? (ie: run without patching and have an active maintainer) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Andreas Jung wrote:

...

I'd imagine the full set of releases would appear on the respective parts of classic.zope.org or advanced.zope.org...

*shrug* I don't care if those releases on the new zope2.zope.org

Please not zope2.zope.org, the insane version naming has *got* to stop...

microsite or somewhere else. The point is that the release should remain available under their well-known URL

How does moving it all to old.zope.org fit with this requirement? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Andreas Jung wrote:

We might discuss this unhurriedly. To sleep and being in vacation mood in order to discuss this now :-) At least the term 'classic' is a NO-GO for me.

Why? Would you prefer 'a' or maybe 'old'? ;-)

...

...

microsite or somewhere else. The point is that the release should remain available under their well-known URL How does moving it all to old.zope.org fit with this requirement?

That was actually my proposal if I wasn't clear enough.

You were clear that you want both old.zope.org and releases to remain available under their well-known urls. I don't see how those two requirements are compatible? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

Chris Withers wrote at 2009-4-2 21:29 +0100:

Andreas Jung wrote:

...

Andrew & others have been working on this issue at the sprint. There is consensus that www.zope.org must be turned into landing page with some mission statement and then links to the related subprojects. The current zope.org site should be moved to old.zope.org (it must remain available for the time being (with URL redirections to the Products and Member area).

Why does it need to keep living even at old.zope.org?

Because members put there content (product implementations) still usable? -- Dieter

Michael Haubenwallner wrote:

There really should be not problem to integrate current www.zope.org/Products and www.zope.org/Members including the LDAP authentication service into an new www.zope.org.

I really don't think we need to implement this if Andreas' redirect plan works out. You're more than welcome to maintain old.zope.org ;-)

No need to break any links - we already did similar with moving DevHome wikis out to wiki.zope.org.

Well yeah, but that hasn't made the information there any more maintained. Just last week I had to go through and remove a couple of references to account.php. I know the plan here is to replace that with the contents of http://docs.zope.org/developer/, and have dev.zope.org go to the same place. The sooner that happens the better... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

(Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:11:00PM -0400) Jim Fulton wrote/schrieb/egrapse:

I don't think we need A&B. Maybe just "Zope" and "Zope Framework".

As long as both use the word "Zope", the confusion will continue. Why don't the Zope 3 people find a different name now, something that relates but is not the same? What good is there in confusing people? On the #zope irc channel we have to beg/force/constantly remind people to state the version they're using, because practically that channel supports two totally different pieces of software. I understand that the developers would like everybody to move to shiny new Zope 3 and maybe think if they stick to the known name that will help this transition. But Zope 2 still works for some people (and will for a long time), those Zope 2 people won't move over by mistake. Even new people (who Chris so much despises landing on Zope 2) are not helped if they *accidentally* land in Zope 3 land. Does anybody honestly think "I started to use Zope 3 because I confused these projects which use the same name" is a convincing argument? Let Zope 3 get adopted because it's better, not because it's confusing people by using the same name. Regards, Sascha

My preferred Zope-future would be: 1. The Zope Framework dependency cleanup project continues. When cleanup is deemed reasonably finished, we rename the framework Zope 4. 2. Zope 3 The Application server moves over to zope.pipeline or similar, and gets a new name, and becomes one of the application servers that run on the Zope Framework. I propose the name "Blue Bream" (another name for the fish Zope). Version can be 1.0 or 4.0, no matter. 3. Grok moves over either to Zope.pipeline or repose.bfg as publisher in Grok 2. 4. Zope 2 moves permanently over to a better publisher, possibly repoze,Zope2, or something based on zope.pipeline. We stick our heads into actually redoing the security with proxies, in a not necessarily completely backwards compatible way. This would be Zope 5, but the name is better as Zope Legacy Server. 5 or 4. That would leave us with Zope Framework v 4.0 or something, and four servers running on Zope Framework. Zope Legacy Server 4/5 (with Plone 5 on top), Blue Bream, BFG and Grok. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

2009/4/3 Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk>:

Lennart Regebro wrote:

...

1. The Zope Framework dependency cleanup project continues. When cleanup is deemed reasonably finished, we rename the framework Zope 4.

Oh, so Zope 4 is a run on from Zope 2?

Eh... no.

How do I upgrade from Zope 2 to Zope 3?

Eh... what's your point?

How about from 3.5 to 4?

Should be reasonably easy.

Bream 4.0 would be fine with me for that, I don't think there seems to be anyone who really cares about it anymore though...

Possible.

...

3. Grok moves over either to Zope.pipeline or repose.bfg as publisher in Grok 2.

Grok is Grok, Repoze is Repoze, lets leave them be and let them choose their own names...

Grok and Repoze is not mutually exclusive.

It cannot be called Zope int(x) for any value of x for the reasons that cause the current confusion. I think Zope Legacy 4 is a bit mean, I think there's plenty more life in the project if people want there to be. That was why I suggested Zope Classic (hey, it worked for Coke when they had to bring back their original product because of a snafu on the supposed replacement!)

Sure, Zope Classic works too. I don't like "Standard" because it makes it sound like it's preferred.

Bream 4 on top of Framework 4 Standard 4(which would include Framework 4) Plone 4 on top of Standard 4 Repoze and Grok on top of Framework 4

Yup. Sounds good to me. As usual, I don't think any decisions should be taken. This is just what I would like to see. People either do it or do not. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:34, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:

Lennart Regebro wrote:

...

Grok and Repoze is not mutually exclusive.

For end users who pick one or the other, they are *are* mutually exclusive in that the users won't necessarily know (or care) that the other exists...

I think you confuse Repoze and repoze.bfg. Grok can, and IMO should, run on top of Repoze. -- Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista. http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64

Andrew Milton wrote:

I think making a distinction between the app servers and the framework/architecture is a good idea, it then just becomes a matter of educating our current or potential users.

Indeed, I hope you'd agree that differentiating them both by nothing more than version number is bad, especially given that the framework uses the same version number as one of the app servers, and yet the framework is *used* in both of them...

If "we" want the name "Zope" to reference the underlying technology then the app servers for all versions need to be relabelled as something else.

I've suggested Zope A & B, Zope Classic & Zope Advanced, Zope Taz & nothing... take your pick or suggest some more :-)

Decide where the line is first, then worry about naming things later.

The lines are pretty much there. We have "Zope 2 the app server" - long may it continue "Zope 3 the app server" - which no-one seems that fussed about "The Zope Framework" - which everyone (both of the above, repoze, grok, plone) cares about. All the other players were sensible enough to give themselves separate names in the first place (grok, repoze, plone, etc)

After all new users don't know the name now, and existing users can cope with a cosmetic thing like a name change.

Exactly.

Let's work out if there is a problem. Then work out how to solve it. Then solve it. Let's not do it backwards.

The only problem I was trying to address with this proposal was to clarify the naming and versioning of the various aspects of the Zope world. My views on what are sensible choices of app server or framework project are something completely different, I'd just like to have a clear vocabulary when arguing about them ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk