[Zope3-dev] Release numbering

[Martijn Faassen]

Jim Fulton wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote: [snip]
[snip]
 > I've always said that we will provide support for
> transitioning to Zope 3, being careful to say "transition support"
> rather than backward compatibility.

And that's not what the Zope X3 release notes strongly imply, which is
again, my point. The message has been received differently than you said
it, and we're still sending out messages with bear very different
interpretation. It's not a secret that many have been skeptical about
backwards compatibility with Zope 2, but there's a reason for why we
thought this was the plan.

Let's go back to 2001 to a message by Shane
Hathaway, which certainly looked official enough to me at the time (it 
was in response to an 'open letter'):

http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2001-December/014313.html

Q: What is Zope 3X?
A: Zope 3X is Zope rebuilt from the ground up, applying the lessons
learned from Zope 2 and CMF.

Q: What is Zope 3?
A: Zope 3 is Zope 3X plus compatibility with Zope 2 products.

Q: Will Zope 3X be compatible with Zope 2 products?
A: No.

Q: Will Zope 3 be compatible with Zope 2 products?
A: Yes.

Q: Will Zope 3X support DTML?
A: Probably not.

Q: Will Zope 3 support DTML?
A: Yes.

Q: Will Zope 3X be compatible with CMF?
A: No.

Q: Will Zope 3 be compatible with CMF?
A: Very likely, but a lot of the CMF ideas will be folded directly into
Zope 3.  You might not need CMF anymore.

This is what settled in our mind as the plan. It may be where Stephan 
got this idea. It is still interfering with the message coming from Zope 
Corporation that it appears did undergo some shifts over time.

[snip]
>> We better have some clearer communication on this topic between
>> Zope 3 core developers,
> 
> Sorry, my mind control skills are lacking. ;)

I thought we could communicate using natural languages and all that. :)

> I can't tell Stephan what to think.  I guess I'd prefer that he
> support the "party line", but heck, who said there was a party.

Well, Stephan probably thought he *was* supporting the party line, which 
is why I'm suggesting you two have a little chat about this.

>> as Stephan himself seems to distinguish between a still
>> official "public plan" and his doubts it will be like that. At
>> least, this is what I conclude from this statement earlier in this
>> discussion:
>  
> Yup. I wish he wouldn't say things like this, especially as the
> release manager.

He got the idea somewhere, and I doubt this is his own official plan. 
This is why I'm trying to bring this issue out into the open.

[snip]
> I greatly appreciate the assistence you and others have provided in 
> helping to bring some of the benefits of Zope 3 to Zope 2.

Thank you, and I understand this. My criticisms are perhaps annoying but 
intended to improve the process.

[snip]
> Sorry, I can't figure out which "this" you mean in your sentance
> above.

I didn't think I said "this". Stephan said the following in the Zope X3 
release notes:

 > The "X" in the name stands for "experimental", since this release
 > not try to provide any backward-compatibility to Zope 2.

[snip]
> The problem is that I can't predict the future.  Maybe you think you
> can. I know Stephan does. ;)

I think I can make educated guesses about the future, just like 
everybody else.

[snip]
>> Anyway, my message here is to get a bit clearer on the message.
>> I've clearly gained a very different idea about what the X means
>> than you do, and that's not for lack of observing the Zope 3
>> process. Let's get our marketing straightened out.

> I certainly want to be clear about what I say.
> 
> The bottom line though is that we don't know.  We will continue to 
> support Zope 2 at least until we do know how the transition will
> work. 
[snip evolutionary scenario]

That's an interesting scenario. In some ways Five is already starting to 
be like this, though full compatibility is still far off.

Anyway, I think the best way to communicate this is not to explain it 
(as it is complicated), and not to give the impression we will get 
backwards compatibility, and not to detract from Zope 3 by adding in Xs 
that we may not drop for years (as this evolution will take years) and 
will have to explain all that time. After all, we said it meant 
"experimental" in 2004, and look how long it is to get rid of the 
message of 2001 about backwards compatibility -- 4 years later we're 
still not clear about it.

You can make the dropping of the X a positive marketing event:

"It is in our opinion that Zope 3.1 is more than ready for production 
use, which is why we decided to drop the X for experimental. We will 
also continue to work on making the transition between Zope 2 and Zope 3 
as smooth as possible. As a first step, Zope 2.8 includes Zope 3 
features in the form of Five."

Regards,

Martijn