Mailing List Archive: Zope: Web

Zope.org - take 3?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

chris at simplistix

Jan 24, 2005, 2:23 AM

Post #1 of 16 (4019 views)
Permalink

Zope.org - take 3?

Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of discussions
> from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It cannot work
> without a tightly organized *small* group of developers that can work
> without interference from the community at large. That's how things get
> done.

OK, I'll bite ;-)

I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return would
be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things that I'm
helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere) and the
right to produce a case study of the project for my company's website.
Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?

Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:

1. A small, tightly focussed project

2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)

3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.

4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no fancy
new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make it work
fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting and site
logging domain, rather than "cool new features".

5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server and
each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched off a
common base, with only the config files being different) so that people
can checkout the software on a local machine and develop stuff using the
usual branch-and-merge model.

6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as possbible.

7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
experience producing functional test suites?

Okay, what do people think?

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

chris at simplistix

Jan 25, 2005, 1:05 AM

Post #2 of 16 (3928 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
"no, we don't want that".

What do people think?

Chris

Chris Withers wrote:

> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of discussions
>> from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It cannot work
>> without a tightly organized *small* group of developers that can work
>> without interference from the community at large. That's how things
>> get done.
>
>
> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>
> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return would
> be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things that I'm
> helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere) and the
> right to produce a case study of the project for my company's website.
> Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>
> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>
> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>
> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>
> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>
> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no fancy
> new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make it work
> fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting and site
> logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>
> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server and
> each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched off a
> common base, with only the config files being different) so that people
> can checkout the software on a local machine and develop stuff using the
> usual branch-and-merge model.
>
> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
> possbible.
>
> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
> experience producing functional test suites?
>
> Okay, what do people think?
>
> Chris
>

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

mark at zopemag

Jan 25, 2005, 2:02 AM

Post #3 of 16 (3932 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Hey Chris,

I think we all think your proposal is cool (only the planning and few
people get to make decisions thing worries me a bit)
but as Sidnei pointed out we should put more effort into "reforming" or
cleaning up the existing Zope.org before we risk
<cliche>"throwing out the baby with the bath water"</cliche>.
Considering the many hard hours Sidnei has put in and the
insight into relaunching the Zope.org site I'm very inclined to follow
his guidance.

Cheers,

Mark

On Jan 25, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Chris Withers wrote:

> Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
> "no, we don't want that".
>
> What do people think?
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Withers wrote:
>
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of
>>> discussions from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It
>>> cannot work without a tightly organized *small* group of developers
>>> that can work without interference from the community at large.
>>> That's how things get done.
>> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
>> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
>> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return
>> would be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things
>> that I'm helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere)
>> and the right to produce a case study of the project for my company's
>> website. Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
>> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
>> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no
>> fancy new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make
>> it work fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting
>> and site logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server
>> and each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched
>> off a common base, with only the config files being different) so
>> that people can checkout the software on a local machine and develop
>> stuff using the usual branch-and-merge model.
>> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
>> possbible.
>> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>> experience producing functional test suites?
>> Okay, what do people think?
>> Chris
>
> --
> Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
> - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>
>

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

andrew at zope

Jan 25, 2005, 6:49 AM

Post #4 of 16 (3925 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Chris Withers wrote:
> Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
> "no, we don't want that".
I'm the typical cynic. I expected nothing less :)
>
> What do people think?
I'm holding off on saying anything more then I've said - I'm not sure
the intention in my earlier comments in retrospect.....frustration I
suppose.

Andrew
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Withers wrote:
>
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of discussions
>>> from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It cannot work
>>> without a tightly organized *small* group of developers that can work
>>> without interference from the community at large. That's how things
>>> get done.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>>
>> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
>> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
>> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return
>> would be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things that
>> I'm helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere) and
>> the right to produce a case study of the project for my company's
>> website. Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>>
>> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>>
>> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>>
>> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
>> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
>> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>>
>> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>>
>> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no fancy
>> new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make it
>> work fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting and
>> site logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>>
>> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server and
>> each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched off a
>> common base, with only the config files being different) so that
>> people can checkout the software on a local machine and develop stuff
>> using the usual branch-and-merge model.
>>
>> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
>> possbible.
>>
>> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>> experience producing functional test suites?
>>
>> Okay, what do people think?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>

--
Zope Managed Hosting
Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
(540) 361-1700
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

andrew at zope

Jan 25, 2005, 7:10 AM

Post #5 of 16 (3936 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Mark Pratt wrote:
> Hey Chris,
>
> I think we all think your proposal is cool (only the planning and few
> people get to make decisions thing worries me a bit)
> but as Sidnei pointed out we should put more effort into "reforming" or
> cleaning up the existing Zope.org before we risk
> <cliche>"throwing out the baby with the bath water"</cliche>.
> Considering the many hard hours Sidnei has put in and the
> insight into relaunching the Zope.org site I'm very inclined to follow
> his guidance.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
I disagree Mark. Sidnei is about the only one who has even close
intimate knowledge of the underpinings of zope.org. If there are others
who are they and where are they? I've got no problem if they were
maintaining things, I would stfu. They're not - so by golly.....

I might be "over reacting" in my aversion to touching anything on
zope.org, but as I noted in my original message: Not one single person
is chomping at the bit to work on it. I would like to resolve that.
That is indication that the site is going to continue to degrade and bit
rot. Personally I'm tired of the conditions which have caused this
condition to be pervasive for the past 3 years. I don't think it's
anyone's fault - so I'm not pointing fingers (whomever might get
offended, don't). Of course, these are only my personal opinions of
condition and cause.

Out of the many talented people, why is it everyone wants to take stuff
off zope.org and move it elsewhere? Zope wikis, zope book, software
projects, tips, ad naseum. I proposed nearly two years ago internally
that we should make zope.org nothing more then the software and
documentaiton site for Zope the product. Focus small and concise - and
doing that sole job well. Everything else we should support and link to
off site where people are more willing and capable of supporting the
various tasks. I would say, ala php.net
I still think this is the best idea, especially with the resources and
continued condition of zope.org maintainers.

Andrew
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>
>> Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
>> "no, we don't want that".
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Chris Withers wrote:
>>
>>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>>
>>>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>>>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of
>>>> discussions from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It
>>>> cannot work without a tightly organized *small* group of developers
>>>> that can work without interference from the community at large.
>>>> That's how things get done.
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>>> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
>>> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
>>> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return
>>> would be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things
>>> that I'm helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere)
>>> and the right to produce a case study of the project for my company's
>>> website. Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>>> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>>> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>>> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
>>> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
>>> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>>> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>>> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no
>>> fancy new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make
>>> it work fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting
>>> and site logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>>> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server
>>> and each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched
>>> off a common base, with only the config files being different) so
>>> that people can checkout the software on a local machine and develop
>>> stuff using the usual branch-and-merge model.
>>> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>>> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
>>> possbible.
>>> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>>> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>>> experience producing functional test suites?
>>> Okay, what do people think?
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
>> - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
>> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

--
Zope Managed Hosting
Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
(540) 361-1700
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

pw_lists at slinkp

Jan 25, 2005, 7:49 AM

Post #6 of 16 (3921 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:10:43AM -0500, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> off zope.org and move it elsewhere? Zope wikis, zope book, software
> projects, tips, ad naseum.

I can't speak for any of those except the one I've been involved
with - the zope book. Chris M. decided to start it on plope.com
for two reasons: 1) zope.org at that point was really unusably
slow, and had been for some time. You just could not get anything
done.
2) alpha-testing some modifications to the Backtalk product.

Actually IIRC, #2 was an afterthought.

> I proposed nearly two years ago internally
> that we should make zope.org nothing more then the software and
> documentaiton site for Zope the product. Focus small and concise - and
> doing that sole job well. Everything else we should support and link to
> off site where people are more willing and capable of supporting the
> various tasks. I would say, ala php.net
> I still think this is the best idea, especially with the resources and
> continued condition of zope.org maintainers.

What is there currently on zope.org that doesn't fall under "software and
documentation"?

--

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

pw_lists at slinkp

Jan 25, 2005, 8:01 AM

Post #7 of 16 (3913 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:23:38AM +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return would
> be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things that I'm
> helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere) and the
> right to produce a case study of the project for my company's website.
> Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?

not I. I have no objection in principle to the idea of a small
working group. Unfortunately I'm overcommitted and I'm thinking
of quitting this list as I've had zero positive contributions
to it in recent memory :-(
I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but hey, you insisted ;-)

> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.

+1

> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no fancy
> new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make it work
> fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting and site
> logging domain, rather than "cool new features".

dunno what you mean. Do you think zope.org has too many features?

> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server and
> each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched off a
> common base, with only the config files being different) so that people
> can checkout the software on a local machine and develop stuff using the
> usual branch-and-merge model.

somehow i thought that something like this existed
already, but I don't recall hte specifics.

> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as possbible.

+1, but I'd be wary of upgrading too eagerly unless the intention
is for zope.org to serve as a dogbowl.
Consider e.g. the recently reported problems with AccessControl under
zope 2.7.4.

> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
> experience producing functional test suites?

not me, but ZopeTestCase should help.

If resources allowed me to devote time to this,
I would bump this up from "maybe" to "definitely" and do it first
before changing anything.

--

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

mark at zopemag

Jan 25, 2005, 8:34 AM

Post #8 of 16 (3923 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Hi,

On Jan 25, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Andrew Sawyers wrote:

>>
> I disagree Mark. Sidnei is about the only one who has even close
> intimate knowledge of the underpinings of zope.org. If there are
> others who are they and where are they? I've got no problem if they
> were maintaining things, I would stfu. They're not - so by golly.....

I guess the question is can it be fixed relatively quickly by/together
with Sidnei? If not then ....

> Out of the many talented people, why is it everyone wants to take
> stuff off zope.org and move it elsewhere? Zope wikis, zope book,
> software projects, tips, ad naseum. I proposed nearly two years ago
> internally that we should make zope.org nothing more then the software
> and documentaiton site for Zope the product. Focus small and concise
> - and doing that sole job well. Everything else we should support and
> link to off site where people are more willing and capable of
> supporting the various tasks. I would say, ala php.net
> I still think this is the best idea, especially with the resources and
> continued condition of zope.org maintainers.

Well I can only speak about our experience with opensourcexperts.com

Zope.org at least has its own directory of Solution Providers but many
other community sites don't and that's one of the reasons we created a
system that would allow sites like Zope.org to suck in our data via RSS
(or any other formats they asked us to).

It's not really designed to compete with Zope.org (so we weren't trying
"to move it elsewhere") but as an easy way for Open Source comapnies in
general to list their skills in many different categories. See:

http://www.opensourcexperts.com/Index/index_html

for an overview.

We have also added the feature to let companies tag whether they
provide training or hosting for each technology (when relevant).

It is likely that sites like zopelabs, zopewiki, plope.org,
opensourcexperts.com will innovate faster than zope.org with a
centralized approach. But whatever form zope.org takes on the future it
is vital that zope.org points (links) to and integrates things like
feeds from
these sites.

Also there are going to be exceptions. Things like links to recent Zope
related articles (the link types I wrote about before) likely won't be
offered elsewhere and are essential for people who are checking out
Zope for the first time can see right away that lots of publications
are writing about Zope (and therefore that it is worthwhile investing
time and money in).

Cheers,

Mark

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

andrew at zope

Jan 25, 2005, 8:35 AM

Post #9 of 16 (3915 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:10:43AM -0500, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
>
>>off zope.org and move it elsewhere? Zope wikis, zope book, software
>>projects, tips, ad naseum.
>
>
>
> I can't speak for any of those except the one I've been involved
> with - the zope book. Chris M. decided to start it on plope.com
> for two reasons: 1) zope.org at that point was really unusably
> slow, and had been for some time. You just could not get anything
> done.
> 2) alpha-testing some modifications to the Backtalk product.
>
> Actually IIRC, #2 was an afterthought.
I didn't mean these were "wrong" approaches; I think they make sense. I
think the "wrong" way is to have duplication of effort where one is
easily confused as the de facto authoritative source. A prime example
is the zope book. People come to zope.org and find a zope book there.
"We", i.e. the communinity, know that chris is hosting the zope book.
So confusion and chaos arise. In these duplication spaces, I would
remove all existence of the one and point to that which is the
authority. Maybe have a mirror process setup. Not certain of the exact
solution at this point.....just expressing my position.
>
>
>>I proposed nearly two years ago internally
>>that we should make zope.org nothing more then the software and
>>documentaiton site for Zope the product. Focus small and concise - and
>>doing that sole job well. Everything else we should support and link to
>>off site where people are more willing and capable of supporting the
>>various tasks. I would say, ala php.net
>>I still think this is the best idea, especially with the resources and
>>continued condition of zope.org maintainers.
>
>
> What is there currently on zope.org that doesn't fall under "software and
> documentation"?
Heh, a lot of orphaned kruft :) 10 pounds of spam?

Andrew
--
Zope Managed Hosting
Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
(540) 361-1700
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

andrew at zope

Jan 25, 2005, 8:40 AM

Post #10 of 16 (3922 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Mark Pratt wrote:

>
> It is likely that sites like zopelabs, zopewiki, plope.org,
> opensourcexperts.com will innovate faster than zope.org with a
> centralized approach. But whatever form zope.org takes on the future it
> is vital that zope.org points (links) to and integrates things like
> feeds from
> these sites.
I agree 100%.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>

Andrew
--
Zope Managed Hosting
Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
(540) 361-1700
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

michael at d2m

Jan 25, 2005, 8:46 AM

Post #11 of 16 (3889 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Mark Pratt wrote:
> It is likely that sites like zopelabs, zopewiki, plope.org,
> opensourcexperts.com will innovate faster than zope.org with a
> centralized approach. But whatever form zope.org takes on the future it
> is vital that zope.org points (links) to and integrates things like
> feeds from these sites.
>

This is exactly what http://planetzope.org is about.

Feel free to syndicate it at
http://planetzope.org/ZopeNews/feed_rss.xml

Michael

--
http://zope.org/Members/d2m
http://planetzope.org

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

mark at zopemag

Jan 25, 2005, 9:03 AM

Post #12 of 16 (3910 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Hi Michael,

First of all: great freaking site! Going into my daily to read
bookmarks.

On Jan 25, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:

> Mark Pratt wrote:
>> It is likely that sites like zopelabs, zopewiki, plope.org,
>> opensourcexperts.com will innovate faster than zope.org with a
>> centralized approach. But whatever form zope.org takes on the future
>> it is vital that zope.org points (links) to and integrates things
>> like feeds from these sites.
>
> This is exactly what http://planetzope.org is about.

Feeds -- yes. But I think zope.org shouldn't just be a collection of
feeds but also point out give an overview of resources that are
avialable in the community. I also think that News items should be much
more structured into things like Events (see the zope-web archives) for
ZUG meetings, training.

>
> Feel free to syndicate it at
> http://planetzope.org/ZopeNews/feed_rss.xml

I have checked it out a couple of times but I think you are missing a
feed for example to our Job Board :-)
Unfortunately their are no Plone, Zope, CPS, bounties but that could be
interesting as well in the future (to grab that feed).
Let us know if you need anything customized.

We have several things on our todo list including a few portlets for
sites to check out in each category. And to load in other sites feeds.
When we have that stuff ready we will.

Cheers,

Mark

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

simon at joyful

Jan 25, 2005, 3:55 PM

Post #13 of 16 (3915 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

The group has been quiet, so many of us aren't checking every day.

My 2c: I'm not certain of the best way to get there, but that's an
excellent clear milestone to aim for, on the software side of things.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

chris at simplistix

Jan 26, 2005, 2:06 AM

Post #14 of 16 (3917 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Paul Winkler wrote:
> I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but hey, you insisted ;-)

yay :-)

>>4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no fancy
>>new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make it work
>>fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting and site
>>logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>
> dunno what you mean. Do you think zope.org has too many features?

No, I'm talking purely software here. I want to see zope.org on good,
solid robust, SIMPLE software, so people can pitch in and help when they
want. To put it another way, I want Zope.org to look exactly like it
does now, work exactly like it does now, but be faster running and
easier to maintain...

>>5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server and
>>each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched off a
>>common base, with only the config files being different) so that people
>>can checkout the software on a local machine and develop stuff using the
>>usual branch-and-merge model.
>
> somehow i thought that something like this existed
> already, but I don't recall hte specifics.

It does, but I remember running away when I heard it tried to do things
like compile python, etc. The instances should be simple enough that
they run on any Zope 2.7.4 and any Python 2.3.4, if anything more
complex needs to be specified, the end result will be brittle and
impossible to understand.

>>6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>>upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as possbible.
>
> +1, but I'd be wary of upgrading too eagerly unless the intention
> is for zope.org to serve as a dogbowl.
> Consider e.g. the recently reported problems with AccessControl under
> zope 2.7.4.

Yep, I'm not advocating going with the "latest and greatest", that's
what got zope.org in this mess in the first place. However, being stuck
on 2.damn.old and requiring MyWierdProduct
0.1.some-beta-pre-release-rubbish and nevner being bale to move off them
seems somewhat foolhardy. How many security exploits is Zope.org still
vulnerable to? ;-)

>>7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>>functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>>experience producing functional test suites?
>
> not me, but ZopeTestCase should help.

Functional != UnitTest.

> If resources allowed me to devote time to this,
> I would bump this up from "maybe" to "definitely" and do it first
> before changing anything.

Well yes, but we're all in that boat, hence the maybe...

cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

pw_lists at slinkp

Jan 26, 2005, 7:14 AM

Post #15 of 16 (3928 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:06:08AM +0000, Chris Withers wrote:
(snip)

I'm +1 on everything you said, except:

> >>7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
> >>functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
> >>experience producing functional test suites?
> >
> >not me, but ZopeTestCase should help.
>
> Functional != UnitTest.

Paul != TotallyIgnorant.

>From ZopeTestCase/doc/FunctionalTesting.stx

Functional Testing Readme

The functional testing support of ZopeTestCase was inspired by
Marius Gedminas' work for Zope 3.

Deriving from the 'Functional' mix-in (and an xTestCase) adds a
'publish' method to your test case class. Tests can call
'self.publish(path, basic=None, env=None, extra=None,
request_method='GET')',
passing a path and, optionally, basic-auth info and form data.
The path may contain a query string.

'publish' returns an enhanced Response object, that can be queried
for status, response body, headers, etc.

'publish' invokes the ZPublisher machinery just as if the request
had come in through ZServer. This allows for high-level testing
of things like argument marshalling, form validation, and traversal.

Note that the tests have *full access to the ZODB*. This means you
can easily prepare a fixture for 'publish' and/or check the impact
of a publication on the database. This represents a major advantage
over purely URL-based test environments!

Please see the 'testFunctional.py' example test for more.

--

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

chris at simplistix

Jan 27, 2005, 1:53 AM

Post #16 of 16 (3893 views)
Permalink

Re: Zope.org - take 3? [In reply to]

Paul Winkler wrote:
>>Functional != UnitTest.
>
> Paul != TotallyIgnorant.

Hehe, but I apparently am, apologies for not realising how much work
ZopeTestCase can do :-)

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web [at] zope
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads