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

[Martijn Faassen]

Chris McDonough wrote:
> 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.

You're right to be skeptical. On the other hand, I haven't seen you 
commit anything into Five anytime recently. :)

Anyway, we need to motivate people to contribute. I've contribued plenty 
to other projects, not much to Zope, so I started wondering why that 
might be so. One reason is definitely that a contribution to Zope now 
may only result in a release of this in the uncertain future, so I have 
little medium term motivation to contribute. Most of my business 
motivation is short and medium term, and I believe I share this with 
many people.

>>>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.

Sure, not a problem. I don't know what exactly makes Z4I complicated; I 
also know Five can be complicated, but the complications are isolated 
and the developer experience should be easy enough.

Regards,

Martijn