Re: Zope3 name

R. David Murray wrote:
  > I just want to point out that we zope3 developers spend a *lot* of
> time talking about names, and trying to choose the "best" names
> for things.  Sometimes we talk ourselves back around to whatever
> name we started with, but the discussions are almost always worthwhile,
> as they clarify just what the thing is and what it is for and,
> indeed, how the systems that surround it are architected.
> 
> This should apply to the name of the whole shebang as much as it does
> to its internal parts.  Which is why Jim is so adamant about the
> Zope 3 name for the product that will provide the migration path
> from Zope 2.

I am coming round to the idea of keeping Zope 3 for the final public 
release.

However, I don't follow the logic there.  I read it as "we spend ages 
talking about names, and tend to chose good ones in the end.  Therefore 
Zope 3 is a good name."  My point is precisely that we *haven't* spent 
ages talking about the Zope 3 name.  Perhaps that's not what you meant?

> In that context I'd also like to say that as a developer I'd love to
> have a release chain of Zope <whatever> that does *not* include
> backward compatability hacks.  

Do you mean, e.g., continuing a long-lived what-is-now Zope 3.x branch?

seb