[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> In an earlier thread I argued that this modified version of Five 1.2
>> should perhaps get a new name to indicate the additional feature. Do you
>> all think that this would be feasible, or should we just go on with
>> 1.2.1? If we give it a new name, the question is obviously which. 1.3 is
>> already taken so we need some sort of suffix (a letter perhaps).
>> Suggestions are welcome :).
> 
> 
> Ugh, soon we'll get Five 1.2-RC3-beta5-whatever. :)

Hehe.

> Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is
> actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this regard? Is
> Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?

Yes.

> Is CMF?

CMF 1.6 is. I hope CMF 2.0 is not.

> I heard some mumblings perhaps 2.9 should be targetted. But perhaps
> Zope 2.8 is still solidly the target. Perhaps these use cases aren't
> driven by Plone/CMF core and some other packages would like to use
> this in Zope 2.8? Can they be identified?

The general use case is to stop having to put things in Products. When
now writing Zope 2 software, a lot of code basically expects stuff to be
in Products, Rocky's modifications make that go away and add a ZCML
directive to let Zope 2 pick up packages from outside Products (so that
they will still receive the same initialization features and an entry in
the Control_Panel, etc.).

The reason for doing so is simple: Products is bound to go away. It
gives a lot of people a lot of pain. With a lot of Zope 3 technology
entering many Zope 2 projects, it would be good to get a clean slate
early on: put new stuff on Product-less packages.

> For simplicity, both for the developers using Five as well as for the
> developers building Five, it'd be much easier if we could simply all
> agree new features go into Five 1.4 for Zope 2.9.

Yes. I agree. I guess the only compelling reason to backport to Five 1.2
is to make people NOT upgrade to Zope 2.9 for this particular feature
(product-less packages).

Then again, Zope 2.9 is "stable" (people don't really trust a .0
release) and we could release Five 1.4 any time after Rocky is done. So
there's really no reason for people NOT to upgrade, I guess.

> Then again, I'm not absolutely against continuing the Five 1.2 line with
> new features.

Me neither.

> How to name it is indeed tricky. Perhaps in favor of 
> comprehensibility we just want to name it 1.2.1, even though we add
> new features. While we cheat and add new features to what should be a
> pure bugfix release, potentially destabilizing it, I think it's
> easier on everyone's mind not to introduce a new line of Five 1.2's
> with features.

Yes, on second thought I agree.

> I also still hope that the pressure to add new features to Five 1.2
> will go away very quickly.

Well, in five months we can retire Five 1.0 and 1.2 for good. I do not
plan to maintain Five releases any longer than their corresponding Zope
releases (others are welcome to do that, of course).

Philipp