[Zope-CMF] Re: state of GenericSetup trunk and branches

[Rob Miller]

yuppie wrote:
> Rob Miller wrote:
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> Just merge and I'll take it from there.
>>
>> done.  sorry for the delay.
> 
> I still did not manage to look at all the changes, but I have some 
> questions regarding metadata.xml:
> 
> - Why is it necessary to use version numbers from VERSION.txt? AFAICS it 
> does not make much sense to keep profile version numbers in sync with 
> product version numbers. New profiles should have an explicit version in 
> metadata.xml, old profiles can use '0' as version number. No?

i could go either way.  i thought that some folks, with products that had fast 
release cycle, might choose to use the product version as the profile version, 
so the product version is used as a failover if a profile version isn't 
present.  i don't feel strongly, though, and would be fine to remove this if 
others disagree.

> - Why uses ProfileMetadata the old ImportConfiguratorBase? 
> ImportConfiguratorBase is just not deprecated because GenericSetup still 
> uses it in some places. But the goal was to get rid of it, not to add 
> new files that depend on it.

since it wasn't deprecated, or even commented, i didn't know the goal was to 
get rid of it.  sorry.

> - Why is exporting metadata.xml not supported?

because metadata.xml is not actually site configuration.  it's metadata on the 
profile itself.  there's not any way, nor should there be, IMO, that the 
information provided in the metadata file can be changed on a live site in 
such a way that it would be exported.  perhaps it would be better to change 
the metadata to an .ini file, or some other config syntax, to distinguish it 
more clearly from the rest of the profile.

> - How are profile dependencies specified, where are they used?

dependencies are specified in metadata.xml; syntax can be found in 
test_profile_metadata.py.  unfortunately, they're not used yet... this was a 
goal that we didn't actually get to.  :-(.

-r