[Zope-CMF] Re: CMF 1.6 change broke Plone compatibility

[Rob Miller]

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> 
> On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
> 
>> The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0  have 
>> different ways to register custom type info classes. Before  that 
>> change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because  they 
>> were merged in an insane way.
>>
>> I fixed the new machinery because
>>
>> - most code used already the new machinery (and I thought that was  
>> Rob's intention)
>>
>> - this doesn't break many products
>>
>> I don't mind if you switch the 1.6 branch back to the old  machinery, 
>> but there are more changes necessary than just reverting  the last 
>> checkin.
> 
> Like what exactly?
> 
> With all due respect, the 1.6 branch should *not* break stuff that  
> works find on 1.5. The specific goal for 1.6 was to be "1.5 plus  
> GenericSetup" so that it stays 1.5-compatible. This change has  nothing 
> to do with GenericSetup from all I can tell. Please don't  just say "OK, 
> change it back if you want, but there may be traps  elsewhere". I do not 
> know what all needs to be changed. I'll be happy  to do it, but I need 
> to know what else is involved.

yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to 1.5 as 
possible, with the exception of GenericSetup.  the types stuff is the 
greyest area, however, because the changes in the way TypeInfo objects 
are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a considerable impact on the setup 
profiles and the import/export nodes.  my original idea was to have the 
1.6 types import adapter use the 2.0 style, containment-based profile 
format, but to generate 1.5 style TypeInfo objects.  i haven't had time 
in recent weeks to keep up w/ all of the stuff that you've been doing, 
yuppie, but i do have a bit of concern that we're causing too much 
divergence btn 1.5 and 1.6 operationally.  if we stray too far, then 
tres will stop forward-porting any 1.5 fixes that he might make... ;-).

-r