<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 July 2011 11:10, Jens Vagelpohl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jens@dataflake.org">jens@dataflake.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 7/5/11 11:56 , Martin Aspeli wrote:<br>
> On 5 July 2011 10:31, Hanno Schlichting<<a href="mailto:hanno@hannosch.eu">hanno@hannosch.eu</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">>> So we just got ourselves a Zope2 version 3.0. And no, naming it 4.0 or<br>
>> 5.0 or anything else doesn't make it any better at all. So 3.0 is the<br>
>> most sensible one :)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Boy, that's going to be confusing. :)<br>
><br>
> I'd actually favour calling it Zope2 4.0 just to avoid any mix-up with the<br>
> defunct Zope 3, although I don't think there are any particularly good<br>
> options here.<br>
<br>
</div>I actually think it's a brilliant idea to "skip" 3.0 and call it 4.0.<br>
<br>
As Martin said, the potential for confusion is very high. A 4.0 would<br>
not only steer around confusing Zope3 3.x and Zope2 3.x, it would also<br>
make it easier to move back to the simple "Zope" moniker without any<br>
qualifying number tacked on. People who only look at version numbers<br>
would now choose Zope 4.0 instead of falling into the "unmaintained"<br>
Zope3 trap.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would tend to agree, given that we now have Blue Bream.</div><div><br></div><div>Martin </div></div>