[Zope] REQUIRING Python 2.1??

Jeff Peterson jpeterso@the-bridge.net
Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:33:09 -0500


I addition, there is also the option of not upgrading *your/my/any* zope
installation to 2.4 until *you/me/anyone* feel(s) it is stable.

my $.02,

______________________________________________
Jeffrey D. Peterson
Webmaster/Web & Web Applications Engineer
Range TV Cable & Broadband
1818 E. 3rd Ave.  Hibbing, MN 55746
jpeterso@the-bridge.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: zope-admin@zope.org [mailto:zope-admin@zope.org]On Behalf Of
> Albert Langer
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:15 AM
> To: 'anser'; zope@zope.org
> Cc: zope-dev@zope.org; brian@digicool.com
> Subject: RE: [Zope] REQUIRING Python 2.1??
>
>
> [anser]
> I can't quite help wondering whether someone at DC has maybe gotten so
> "into" the development of Py 2.1 that they just can't wait to use its new
> stuff, whether it's objectively what's best for Zope or not.  The prudent
> thing to do would have been to add features as needed using
> 1.5.2-compatible code, or at best to offer a "new18n" branch that requires
> 2.1, which people who are THAT desperate for i18n could choose to
> follow if
> they wanted.  Then, say 6-12 months after 2.1 is gold, you could unify and
> require it for 3.0.  Instead, for the sake of being able to let the Python
> developers stick a Zope logo on the 2.1 release, we are risking a boatload
> of trouble.
>
> [albert]
> As far as I can make out the strategy you advocate is more or less exactly
> what they *did* do - so smoothly you didn't even notice.
>
> The *big* leap is from 1.5.2 to 2.0 which has been out for quite a while.
> I18N is *desperately* needed but had to be delayed because of the
> compatability problems you are rightly concerned about. So even after
> I18N became feasible with 2.0 the main branch was made compatible
> with using 2.0 but binaries released with 1.5.2 to avoid risking a
> boatload of trouble while enabling people desperate for I18N to start
> using 2.0 and at the same time discover as much as possible of the
> hiccups before general switchover.
>
> Waiting for the "odd numbered release" is also a generally sound
> policy. Essentially you are confusing that prudent delay in
> completing the smoothly planned (and very clearly announced long ago)
> switch from 1.5.2 to 2.x with a sudden rush to 2.1. Whatever
> problems do occur will be overwhelmingly from the 2.x, not from
> it being 2.1 in particular.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
> **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
>  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
>  http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>