[Interface-dev] Separate zope.interface package

[Fred Drake]

On Monday 14 June 2004 10:38 am, Jim Fulton wrote:
 > > What, specifically, do you feel was a mistake?  Using the ZopeX3 branch,
 >
 > Yes
 >
 > > sharing the version number, both,
 >
 > Yes

That makes it clear; thanks!

 > That was not my intent.  One of the main points of the repository work

I presume you mean the packaging effort.

 > was to decouple repository layout and release management.  Of course,
 > the "standard" subversion layout strategy tends to couple repository
 > layout and releases. :(  I need to ponder this.

I don't think this is a function of the standard Subversion project layout at 
all.  I do think some of the current issues here are tightly related to a 
couple of things:

- Python's difficulty in dealing with packages that are split across multiple 
locations (where len(__path__) > 1); the pkgutil bug should be seen as quite 
serious, I think, but there have been no followups other than my own:

    http://www.python.org/sf/935117

- your expectation that dependencies will be part of the checkout instead of 
separate packages that need to be installed.

 > There might need to be a feature release of zope.interface *before* there
 > is another feature release of Zope. At which point, the ZopeX3-3.0 branch
 > becomes irrelevant.

Yes; that's fine.  ZopeX3-3.0 is a maintenance branch; I wouldn't expect new 
feature releases to be made from that.

 > I may be overoptimistic, but I find merging to be wildly easier with
 > subversion than it was with CVS.  Aside from the time required to run

It is easier than CVS, which does help.

 > tests, copying changes between branches should be very easy.  I've
 > certainly found it to be.  It probably helps a lot to copy the
 > changes as you make them.  Of course, you do want to minimize the
 > number of branches you have to do this for.  If this becomes a problem, we
 > probably would want to switch to a "vendor import" model of having a
 > separate head for zope.interface that we periodically sync up with the
 > projects that need it.

Either the "vendor import" model or just using separate distribution packages 
all the time would work well too.

 > It would be a lower priority.  In general, I want to make it easier for
 > others to create releases as needed.

We should determine what requirement we have for separate releases.  I think 
for ZC the biggest issue is for everyone to be on the same page about what 
zope.interface is, which means there should be one release authority, and 
other ZC code should rely only on published releases.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fred at zope.com>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation