[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Clarification re: Zope X3.1, 2.8

[Chris McDonough]

On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> [snip]
> > I assume these caveats are spelled out here because Z3 developers don't
> > want to slow down Z3 development to test/maintain Z2 compatibility.  I
> > know a lot about Z2 code, but I know very little about Z3 code.  I'd
> > like that to change, but it's likely that I'll just not have the
> > bandwidth to make sure Z3-inside-Z2 works.  If that just means I can't
> > use Z3 features but nothing else breaks, it's probably fine, but if Z3
> > integration actively breaks Z2, it's likely I'll just need for some
> > extended period of time to continue to use and maintain 2.7.
> 
> Several of us *do* have the bandwidth to make sure Zope 3 in Zope 2 
> works, as we're actively using it.
> 
> Five has been from the start a project that explicitly tried to 
> interfere with both Zope 2 and Zope 3 as little as possible. If you 
> don't use the Zope 3 features in Zope 2, they're just not there.

Great.

I hope you'll forgive the skepticism, it's just that the a lot of the
people talking about doing this merge haven't actually checked anything
into Zope 2 in a pretty long time, and commit frequency is typically a
good indicator (maybe the only indicator) of who might continue to
maintain the codebase in the future.

> > It appears there is an assumption that merging Z2 and Z3 code within Z2
> > itself is an unmitigated good thing, but IMHO, each is complicated
> > enough in their own right that I'd personally prefer to be dealing with
> > one or the other at any given time and not both.  This isn't exactly
> > idle whining either, I need to do this when I maintain Z4I code, and
> > it's definitely not a walk in the park; it's moderately difficult to do
> > and also difficult find people who have the skills to help too.
> > 
> > Does anyone else share this skepticism or am I about to get shouted
> > down? ;-)
> 
> I've already done all this worrying for you and did the right thing with 
> Five, so you're just ignorant. ;)

Right.  That's clear.  I'm glad you've committed to maintaining it.

- C