Re: Zope3 name

seb bacon wrote:
> 
> 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.


+1 on this two-names approach.

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Godefroid Chapelle

BubbleNet sprl
Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium