Re: Zope3 name

On mercredi, f=E9v 12, 2003, at 21:58 Europe/Paris, Ken Manheimer wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
>
>> 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=20
>>> 1.0.
>>> The thing with backwards compatibility with Zope 2.x could be called
>>> Zope 3.0.
>
> Yikes.
>
> What about the fact that Zope 3.0 will be backwards compatable with
> ZCS 1.0?  In fact, it will be much more like ZCS 1.0 than it will be
> like Zope 2.0 - despite the fact that it's named _completely
> differently_, in numbering and words, from ZCS 1.0?  I think this
> would be extremely and unforgivably misleading.
>
> Hmm.  That's a characterization i often connect with the worst kind of

Yikes indeed.

> advertising/marketing missteps.  I don't think or mean to say that
> anyone here had the intention to be misleading, but i think it would
> be.  And i think it's a sign that the appearance (name) is being
> given, just a tad, too much consideration - exceeding consideration
> for, and losing touch with, the basic technical reality.

I think you might be coming in a little late on this conversation.  We=20=

are trying to choose names that *avoid* being misleading.

In the opinion of some of us here, revving the number from 2.7 to 3.0=20
is misleading.  A completely new API, a substantially new architecture,=20=

and a complete rewrite of the implementation isn't connoted by 2.7->3.0.

We are trying to do anti-marketing.  We are trying to be intellectually=20=

honest in setting people's expectations about the step function=20
involved in this transition.

--Paul=