Re: Zope3 name

Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
> Seb Bacon wrote:
>> If it were demonstrated that the majority of the Zope public (or even, 
>> just your customers) felt more comfortable with the next generation of 
>> Zope being called "Zope Component Server 1.0" (for *whatever* reason), 
>> would you still oppose such a move?
>>
> I'd like to step in with slightly naive opinion. I think that Zope 
> Component Server is a very good name to explain that Zope3 (Zope 
> Component Server ;-) is a very new and more capable product, and in 
> parallel that it still need some time to be finished.
> 
> OTH, if the intention is really to ease migration in any way (migration 
> tools, backporting, foreporting of Zope2 API...), ZCS could induce the 
> wrong feeling that it will be difficult to migrate.

I like Joseph's suggestion: the thing we're working on now (sometimes 
called Zope 3.x) could ultimately be called Zope Component Server 1.0. 
The thing with backwards compatibility with Zope 2.x could be called 
Zope 3.0.

If we took this approach, it also allows us to follow a less ambiguous 
release cycle than the "alpha" label I was worried about elsewhere.  It 
could go: ZCS 0.1 ... ZCS 0.9.8 ... ZCS 1.0alpha ... ZCS 1.0beta ...ZCS 
rc1 ... ZCS 1.0.  I think people would understand this much better.

Having *both* names gives the best of both worlds: it emphasises the 
difference between Zopes 2 and 3 during the pure development phase, 
while emphasising the continuity between products after the backporting 
/ compatibility phase.

It would also keep Jim happy:

 > If the "x" is causing so much confusion, we could certainly entertain
 > another name for it. I'd even be open to a name for 3x that didn't
 > have the digit '3' in it.  I'm not open to picking a a different name
 > for Zope 3.0.

It allows more flexibility in the future, too: it may be desirable to 
keep a 'clean' Zope 3 version, without any compatibility fluff.  This 
could continue as a separate line of releases, if desired, under the 
Zope Component Server moniker.  Or is this totally out of scope, Jim?

seb