[ZWeb] Zope.org - take 3?
mark at zopemag.com
Tue Jan 25 05:02:30 EST 2005
I think we all think your proposal is cool (only the planning and few
people get to make decisions thing worries me a bit)
but as Sidnei pointed out we should put more effort into "reforming" or
cleaning up the existing Zope.org before we risk
<cliche>"throwing out the baby with the bath water"</cliche>.
Considering the many hard hours Sidnei has put in and the
insight into relaunching the Zope.org site I'm very inclined to follow
On Jan 25, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
> "no, we don't want that".
> What do people think?
> Chris Withers wrote:
>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of
>>> discussions from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It
>>> cannot work without a tightly organized *small* group of developers
>>> that can work without interference from the community at large.
>>> That's how things get done.
>> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
>> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
>> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return
>> would be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things
>> that I'm helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere)
>> and the right to produce a case study of the project for my company's
>> website. Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
>> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
>> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no
>> fancy new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make
>> it work fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting
>> and site logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server
>> and each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched
>> off a common base, with only the config files being different) so
>> that people can checkout the software on a local machine and develop
>> stuff using the usual branch-and-merge model.
>> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
>> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>> experience producing functional test suites?
>> Okay, what do people think?
> Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
> - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web at zope.org
More information about the Zope-web