Re: Zope3 name

Cool, seb.  Sounds like our disagreement about the clarity of the
naming proposal got lost in some mis-communication, but we're back on
track.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Seb Bacon wrote:

> Ken Manheimer wrote:
> > I'm saying that putting a completely different, incongruous name on an
> > interim release will confuse people, technical and non-technical
> > alike. 
> 
> OK.  I'm saying that (A) the name under discussion is *not* completely 
> different or incongruous, and (B) it will enlighten people.  Perhaps.

Maybe "drastically different" is what i should have said.

> > Like i said, "clear" is a judgement call, and those advocating 
> > 
> >                            Zope 2 \
> >                                    - Zope 3.0
> >     Zope Configuration Server 1.0 /
> > 
> > may see it as somehow being clarifying.  I Do Not, and think
> > specifically it is not because it loses mnemonic, orienting clues in
> > the name. 
> 
> (That should be 'Component' server)

Whoops - i knew that.-) And actually, i happen to _like_ the name.
But the underlying issue is whether or not the name should indicate
continuity in the Zope line.  I strongly feel that it should, because:

 1. In particular, "the public" will eventually be dealing with the
    emergence of Zope 3.0 - which will be more like ZCS 1.0 than Zope
    2.0.  That seems terribly - and unjustifiably - confusing to me.

 2. As a whole (Zope 3x and Zope 3.0 and forwards) we're talking about
    the line that is the next major revision of Zope.  Backward
    compatable or not, that's what major revision changes are for.

    Sometimes companies take the opportunity to make major name
    changes, in the process - eg, SunOS 1,2,3,4,Solaris.  I think
    that's because it's an opportunity to take that liberty, not
    because all the other major revision shifts were backwards
    compatable (which i don't think was the case, any more than
    4=>Solaris).

> The only thing "Zope Component Server" *loses* is a higher version 
> number than Zope 2.  It *gains* some descriptive qualifiers.  I think 
> the bandying about of a "3" version number at this stage is precisely 
> the cause of the current confusion in the community.
> 
> I have still to be convinced that any obscuring is being proposed. 
> Could you try again?

Specifically, it loses any indication of its relationship to the
eventual Zope 3.0.

Now, if you don't agree that the Zope 3 _line_ should have the number
'3', then we have to argue item (2.) above.  I'm not sure what i think
about that - but more generally, i think there are more important
issues - risks and gains - to be dealt with concerning the migration
than fiddling with the name of the line would yield.

> I posed a question in a previous post, relating to this point: is there 
> any future for a "pure" Zope 3, without Zope 2 cruft?  Or is my whole 
> idea of "cruft" a misconception?

Why do you see it as necessary?  Do you have particular need for it?
How high priority is it for you - higher than having a backwards
compatable version, or porting Zope 3 innovations back to Zope 2? 
I mean, it has a real resource cost, if there is going to be a
backwards-compatable version as well (and i think there's real need
for that), and will drain resources from the other efforts.

> > No, i suggested being more clear about the distinction in the name,
> > rather than (what i see as) an arbitrarily incongruous one.
> 
> OK - I've missed how you propose to clarify that distinction - could you 
> elaborate?

I'be suggested being more explicit about the special status - from
"Zope X3" - a la the US military research/experimental rocket planes,
X15 and so forth - to the less cute "Zope 3 Interim", "Zope 3
no-2-compat", and "Zope 3 Experimental" (though i think the last is a
bit misleading).

(I think i may actually like "Zope X3", maybe "Zope 3 Interim", i'm
not sure about the rest.  I wouldn't take a strong stand for them,
though.)

In any case, i think they're the kind of thing that more directly
addresses the confusion concerns, without creating confusion of their
own down the road.

> <snip>
> > ..the effects of esoteric tricks are so relatively far
> > down in the noise that they're not significant to us.
> 
> Again, I don't regard what I am proposing as an "esoteric trick" or as 
> employing "obscurity".

Sorry - i was referring to something i had written earlier in that
paragraph, "marketing technology that involves using obscurity to
improve the sell", not what you were proposing.  I was more
excessively verbose than usual...-)

-- 
Ken
[email protected]