hannosch at hannosch
May 26, 2009, 2:20 AM
Post #4 of 8
(584 views)
Permalink
|
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On May 26, 2009, at 10:21 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> The CMF eggs, even on trunk, still advertise compatibility with Zope
>>> 2.10. I believe we had agreed to target Zope 2.12 with trunk - please
>>> correct me if that's wrong. If we do want Zope 2.12 I would like to
>>> go
>>> through before the first CMF 2.2 beta and do the following:
>>>
>>> - adjust all setup.py files to show the Zope2 egg as dependency,
>>> which will imply the "Zope2 >= 2.12dev" dependency
>>>
>>> - go through and delete all BBB code for Zope versions earlier than
>>> 2.12
>>>
>>> If anyone thinks that's a bad idea please speak up.
>> I think we are targetting Plone 4 at CMF 2.2 and Zope 2.11 at the
>> moment, so that would be bad for us.
Yep, the new Plone 4.0 (to be released sometime this year) is planned to
be a new more stable stepping stone to the Plone trunk work that is
going on for a while.
We have been talking about using Zope 2.11 for that release so far,
since Zope 2.12 is quite invasive. But I think that's a decision that is
still to be made and we can go with 2.12 for the new Plone 4.
If there are good reasons for the CMF developers to switch to an
exclusive Zope 2.12 platform, Plone can deal with that. If there's no
real reason except "it's newer" and the cost of being compatible with
both 2.11 and 2.12 isn't too high, targeting both Zope versions might be
nicer.
> I'm guessing you are not aware that there already is a hard dependency
> in CMFDefault. In essence, I would not be setting a new policy, I
> would document the current situation.
Why doesn't that generate test failures? We are running nightly tests
testing CMF trunk with Zope 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12.
Hanno
_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF[at]lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests
|
