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

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over
> > 2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with
> > Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be.
> > If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be the most recent
> > one. That way it's made clear that the lower version (2.7, 2.8) is only
> > still supported as a courtesy for those who don't want to upgrade right
> > now. All other Plone developers and users should preferrably use the
> > highest stable of Zope, otherwise Plone will continue to lag behind at
> > least one Zope major release.
>
> I'm not the release manager, so it's not my decision, but I think the
> argument goes something like, Zope 2.9 hasn't lived very long, and .0
> versions of Zope have a history of having subtle security and performance
> bugs; similarly, those who just upgraded to Zope 2.8 may not want to
> upgrade again just yet. 2.8 is the conservative choice, for those who want
> the most stable, out-of-the-box Plone. 2.9 will likely be the choice for
> those who want the latest and greatest features from add-on products.

Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to
roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*. Conservative
or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't receive bugfixes the
minute I start using it...

We will have to get used to the fact that Zope 2 release lines live shorter.
They live for one year, to be exact. I think conservativism shouldn't extend
beyond the age of Zope releases, unless the Plone people want to continue to
maintain and release older Zope 2 versions on their own time.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.