[Zope3-dev] The Zope Software Certification Program and Common Repository Proposal

[Martijn Faassen]

Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
>>tests (in doctest format)
>  
> This seems like a very random requirement for me. I'd like to see
> tests that can be run with the standard test-runner, otherwise I don't
> see a reason to restrict it. I find doctest greating for testing docs,
> and testing longer use cases. Otherwise I don't like it at all, and
> see absolutely no reason to force people to only use doctests.

While I like doctests, I think this is a good point. Tests that work 
with the standard test-runner is indeed a valid minimum requirement. 
Doctests might give you a plus, but this is also in the documentation 
domain and that gives you a plus anyway.

>>Packages of this level are considered fit for the Zope 3 core with the
>>reservation of the core developers to provide or require small improvements.
>  
> I'm not sure I understand what you say here. You say that level one
> packages are almost good enough to be zope 3 core, and that the other
> levels are good enough to be Zope3 core, even though they are not?

Perhaps we should leave out talk about inclusion into the Zope 3 core 
for now. After all, the Zope 3 core is going to become less core-ish in 
the future, and whether a package is included depends on more than just 
whether it conforms to the list of requirements - we may want to adopt a 
package that is less conformant but provides great features (having to 
bring it up to spec) above one that is very conformant but feature-wise 
isn't very interesting for the core.

>>[1] For small packages it will suffice, if the documentation is available
>>      via a Web site of the repository. For projects having a homepage, the
>>      documentation *must* be available there.
> 

> When you say "Web site of the repository" do you mean svn access via
> http? Because there could be more, we could give each project a small
> auto-generated website which contains documentation and releases, in
> the way of codespeak. This would force every project to keep the
> documentation in the same format, suitable for automatic generation
> into HTML and other formats, which I guess is something we would like
> anyway. In that case, documentation could be on this "project-page"
> and if you have any other homepage for the project, you could just
> link there.

I think auto-generating a website for a project is a great idea! This 
would indeed encourage uniformity in the documentation.

The risk is that someone will have to implement code that does this, 
unless we recycle the stuff for codespeak.

Regards,

Martijn