Re: summary of suggestions
Lennart Regebro <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.zope.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 20:13, Martijn Faassen <[email protected]> wrote: > Since there are no ZTK releases Grok and BlueBream gain stability by > pinning to a particular revision of ztk.cfg (and moving it forward when > needed). Zope 2 could easily do the same. If more is needed, then a > branch or tag can easily be made. Besides the perennial documentation > issues, I also don't see why we couldn't just start releasing the ZTK; > instead of pinning to an SVN revision we'd start pinning to an SVN tag > (or a release URL with version number in it). What's the holdup, really? Making a ZTK 1.0a seems to be a good idea to me, and should help here. And we don't have to commit to anything, since it's an alpha. We could even call it 0.1, if so desired. :) > One objection I can see is that we might end up with quite a few > releases in a short period, and it might be nicer to have a more stable > base that people can build on. But they could simply pin to one release > and stick with it for a while, right? Right. -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )