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

[whit]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> Just to comment on this interchange: Tim Hicks isn't the only one who 
> we'd need to explain a few things to in the new world order. We may end 
> up with people just dumping packages in SOFTWARE_HOME's 'lib/python' 
> directory if we're not careful.
> 
> I have some worries with the current Zope 3 world, as already expressed 
> in some earlier discussions with Philipp. There are right now too many 
> different ways people package their Zope 3 extensions.

I feel your concern about having more than one way to do it.  and about 
this causing some confusion.

But drawing line in the sand for features that initially will only 
benefit developers seems like a bad idea to me.  But I think the value 
in starting align development style in z2 with the rest of the python 
world outweighs a small spike in support burden.

In actuality, the number of products that anyone depends on will not be 
using this in 2.8, but making it available to 2.8 will give people an 
opportunity to use this and familiarize themselves.  for example, Plone 
will be on 2.8 for at least another 6 or more months.  And some Plone 
installations, indefinitely longer...

an education problem is an education problem now or later.

On the issue of where packages go, we do need some conventions and 
giving zope it's own "golden path" would be a publicity boon as well as 
easier for everyone.

-w