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

Stephan Richter srichter at cosmos.phy.tufts.edu
Tue Feb 21 10:26:58 EST 2006

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:54, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 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.

Okay, so I simply did not even think about that! :-) It was for me totally 
obvious. :-) Should I add it to the matrix?

> Doctests might give you a plus, but this is also in the documentation
> domain and that gives you a plus anyway.

That's right. An emphasis on documentation is extremely important here. In 
combination with testing (i.e. doctests ;-) it is our key metric to measure.

> > 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.

Well, here is the reason I added it. Benji wants to certify zope.testbrowser. 
He then asks me, so when is a package considered fit for the core (by 
inclusion or linking)? And we both agreed on level 1 quickly with the 
reservation that we could ask for a few improvements. And I think this is 
important to mention, because upstream movement of packages is one of the 
goals of the proposal.

Note that by "core" I did not mean to physically move it there, but more like: 
It is part of the standard package, much like zope.testbrowser, 
zope.testrunner, etc. is now.

> 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.

Yes, if someone would put in the time and effort to make this happen, I would 
welcome that. I have attached some of my early ideas of how far I would go 
with package information on the ZSCP site.

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ZSCP-Site.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 91559 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20060221/0ff1d7e9/ZSCP-Site-0001.pdf

More information about the Zope3-dev mailing list