[Zope-CMF] Revisions & CMF

[Ken Manheimer]

On Thu, 31 May 2001, Shane Hathaway wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2001, seb bacon wrote:
> 
> > Right, but I'd argue (on the basis of what I just said) that the
> > strategy should expose a packable property which can play with
> > Workflows, since this is likely to be a problem for any
> > implementation.  Or perhaps I'm inexplicably hung up about a very
> > minor issue ;-)
> 
> See my post to Toby.  If we tweak Zope versions we may get what we're
> looking for without having to be concerned about packing.

Yes - exempting historical versions is only relevant to this issue if
we're basing our mechanism on historical versions, and it turns out that
would be an abuse of historical revisions, both expensive as implemented
and expensive to accommodate architecturally.  (That's not what historical
versions are designed for, as i was beginning to recognize in my
proposal.)

There are *other* reasons for having the ability to specify packing
exemptions, and in fact that feature is something we're likely to
eventually see - it's not far afield from the use of historical versions,
or the architecture.  However, that is a separate issue from the
published/future distinction, in the direction we're heading.

(If you do have urgent need for something like packing exemptions, make a
proposal in the fishbowl, spelling out the need.  If it really does
require packing exemption, that will help flesh out the use cases, and
help the core team factor the need into the relative priorities.)

Ken Manheimer
klm@digicool.com