[Zope-dev] official release policy ZTK is still not changed

[Jim Fulton]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
<faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Apparently some people are using '0' instead of the next version for
>>> packages in the ZTK.
>>>
>>> Please do not do this for ZTK packages. The official policy for
>>> releasing is here.
>>>
>>> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/releasing-software.html
>>
>> I don't understand why this would be important,
>
> ?!..
>
> See my comment below.
>
>> but if it is, I
>> propose to using 0 instead of the dev of the next version.  Where I've
>> used '0', I've found it to be less error prone.  Ir also requires less
>> effort because it means you never have to edit the version on the
>> trunk.
>
> I'm -1 to using 0.
>
> Reasons:
>
> * it breaks dependencies on development versions which have version
> requirements in it (see Wichert's comments on the original thread).

I'm not sure I understand this.

> We're supposed to be maintaining these: see the version requirements in
> setup.py decision of the steering group:
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/steeringgroup/decisions.html

'0' becomes another name for "trunk" so anything that specified
version requirements with a lower bound would need to also include
"==0".


> * I (and others) use tools to do releases (zest.releaser in my case).
> These tools are based on this policy. Changing the policy breaks the tools.

The proposed change would make this tool simpler.  More importantly,
it makes things simpler for people who don't use the tool.


> * change with little gain (and some loss)

I don't see a loss.

> to a policy which we've had
> for years and works fine. (Philipp wrote this sometime in 2007 or so,
> and we were already having debates about doing VBs back then. Christian
> added it in the documentation that turned into the ZTK documentation
> right away)

Right, Philipp wrote a process that was pretty good. People followed
it and in the process we found it could be improved.

> I'm also particularly disgruntled that people just started deviating
> from the ZTK policy without discussion. Goes completely against the
> point of having a steering group and a written down policy.

I'm sorry you're disgruntled. I wasn't aware that this was a ZTK policy.

I've been using '0' since before there was a ZTK.  I never proposed it
as any sort of standard before, because I wanted to try it for a while
first and see if it was an improvement.

> Comments like "I don't understand why this should be important" don't
> improve my mood. The whole point of writing down policy is so everybody
> knows what it is and will use it, instead of it being some randomly
> evolving community practice.

Not everything is of equal importance.  I don't consider this very
important, other than that it seems to be important to you.

> This way it is much easier to help new people get up to speed in our
> community, maintain consistent practices, and people already in our
> community will also have an easier time keeping track of what's going on.
>
> [I hope people who appreciate having such a policy will chip in here and
> say "yes, I want a written-down policy, please" so it isn't just me who
> is telling Jim this.]

I don't mind if there are standards and I wasn't proposing that there
shouldn't be. I was proposing a change to the standard. For ZTK
packages, I'm willing to follow the standard.

I don't agree with this particular standard and won't follow it for my
own non-ZTK packages.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton