[Zope] Ruling from the bench regarding 'Hotfixes' :)

[Bill Anderson]

On Fri, 2001-08-24 at 12:42, Ron Bickers wrote:
> > > From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian.lloyd@zope.com>
...
> > - already
> > the user (product building) community has interpreted the word 'hotfix'
> > differently than ZC has intended...
> 
> I wonder how many have interpreted it differently.  I've always thought of
> it as Brian just described...especially with the word "fix" in it, which
> most certainly implies that something is broken.

Exactly, fix implies broken. I, and those who came to me this last week
or so, agree.

 
> > I for one would like to be able to do Product searches and have a list for
> > Core Enhancements as separate from Added Functionality...

+ Product
   - ProductPatchHot  --does not require restart/refresh
   - ProductPatchCold --requires a restart or refresh

+ Core
   - CorePatchHot
   - CorePatchCold


> I'm not sure this is always easy to distinguish.  For example, would you
> consider an alternate User Folder a core enhancement or added functionality?
> Would the determination be based on whether or not monkey patches were used
> or some conception of what the product does?

To me, it is easy; Does it modify core code, or is it in addition to
core code? If it modifies existing core code, it would fall under a core
enhancement, or core change. If it does not, it is an add-on. The fact
that it does something the core system also does, albeit in a diferent
manner/api/level of functionality, is not nearly as relevant as whether
or not it is a modification of existing code.  In this case, an
alternate user folder is by definition: alternate, not modification,
hence *added* functionality. A patch that *altered* UserFolder, would be
(if successful, of course ;^) an enhancement. 

Bill Anderson