Re: Zope3 name

seb bacon wrote:
> There has been a discussion about naming Zope3, which I would like to 
> revive.
> 
> First (and what got me thinking about it again): was it appropriate to 
> call the pre-New-Year-release  an 'alpha'?  On the one hand, I know Jim 
> is keen to keep up the momentum among developers.  On the other, it 
> suggests (to me) a level of maturity which the product has not yet 
> reached, which could damage perceptions from the outside.

I'm puzzled and wondering what you thing "alpha" means. The term
"alpha" in connection with a software release doesn't imply maturity
or stabilities. The purpose of alphas is to give people early looks at
where a product is going so that they can provide feedback in time to
affect the product development.

The alpha was *very* clearly marked as early and not for production
use.

> OK, I would be happy deploying a Zope3 app *now* for a company which was 
> willing to pay a fair amount for ongoing support.
> 
> But a number of central parts of the application are either incomplete 
> or not yet fixed - for example, APIs, the interfaces implementation, the 
> GUI, software packaging, a full catalog implementation.
> 
> One reasonable solution to the perception problem still appears to be to 
> change the name of Zope 3 now before it is too late.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
>  - It is entirely unclear that Zope3.0 will be ready before such a time
>    that Zope 2.x runs out of minor version numbers and perhaps
>    undergoes some major changes itself (what about the proposed
>    back-ports of new Z3 functionality?)

I tried to make it clear that Zope 2 releases will continue beyond the
advent of Zope 3.0.  How far beyond 2.0 is unclear at this early time,
but it will be as long as it needs to be.


>  - Zope3 will be so different for developers from 2.7, it seems
>    confusing to make it sound like a major point change when it's
>    actually a complete rewrite. 

Major point changes often are rewrites. The reason for selecting a major
point change is to let people know that this is a really major revision.


  >    People will go out and buy the "Zope
>    Book" and find it completely irrelevant.  I would prefer Zope 3000 or
>    Zope Component Server, for example.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how gaving it a slightly different name is going
to make any difference here.  I doubt that the Zope 2 books will be completely
irrelevent. We'll only know that when we get further along.  There will be
Zope 3 books to replace the Zope 2 books. In any case, Zope 2 will be with
us for some time and, thus, the Zope 2 books will remain relevent.


>  - It is increasingly clear to me that ZC and/or the community must work
>    out very long-term support and development arrangements for 2.x to
>    keep existing customers happy. 

Yes.

  >    Having 3.0 suggests a replacement of
>    2.7 to nervous users.  Why not have a name which does not apparently
>    preclude parallel development?

I name doesn't preclude development.  A name has nothing to do with
the level of development.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:[email protected]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (888) 344-4332            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org