[Zope] [Zope-dev] Zope 4.0, maybe not such a bad idea...

[Andrew Milton]

+-------[ Chris Withers ]----------------------
| Andrew Milton wrote:
| >My position is that plenty of people use Zope 2 without plone, 
| 
| Your position appeared to be that it's a good idea to tempt new users 
| into using "plain zope 2". I assert that it's not because zope.org is 
| dead, the docs have barely changed in 7 years and,

So your position is, the code is fine, but, the docs suck so don't use
it. Well the docs have always sucked, the zope-3 docs don't seem any
better. Perhaps the people deprecating and removing interfaces willy-nilly 
should document the replacements and how to change over existing consumers 
of the removed interfaces, or re-implement the removed interfaces using
"the new way."

These are all issues for The Zope Foundation to address, not for you to
badger individuals who don't agree with your dogma-de-jour. Badger the
people responsible to do something. 

Better still start a project and ask for help, you'll certainly get
further than trying to order around other people to do what you want.

| in a specific case, 
| LocalFS has become unmaintained and doesn't work in current Zope 2 releases.

Lots of perfectly stable, very useful Products fall into this category from 2.10/11 
onwards. I suppose in your new self-appointed role of wtf you think you
are, you'll attempt to randomly assign new maintainers for all that code too.

| >| >I already maintain a lot of code, 
| >| 
| >| such as?
| >
| >So you really don't go to zope.org.
| 
| That doesn't answer my question. What public code do you actively maintain?

It does (for Zope related code) if you bothered to look, but, as is all
too obvious in most of your emails YOU don't want to DO anything.

| >| >and I have my own LocalFS-type code so I 
| >| >don't see the need to maintain a different one.
| >| 
| >| Then why not release this and advertise is as a maintained alternative 
| >| to LocalFS?
| >
| >Why bother? 
| 
| Because it's broken on current Zope releases and no-one is maintaining 
| it, meaning every person who wants to use it has to individually patch 
| it and maintain their own local copy.

You're the one with the bug up their arse about it, YOU fix it and
release it, or stfu about it. You could have completely rewritten it in
the time it took you to write all these pointless emails.

I don't use LocalFS, I'm not going to try to maintain it. 

As for the other code, that's not code I want to release as Open
Source.

Since you're more than capable of maintaining LocalFS, you seem to be up in
arms about it, you're making more noise than anyone else, time to put up 
or shut up. 

Contact the maintainer, ask to take it over, gather the patches, get it
working, make a release, maintain it.

-- 
Andrew Milton
akm at theinternet.com.au