GvR> Maybe we need to use a different word? Barry noted that
GvR> 2.1.x is the most popular "stable" release and will probably
GvR> remain that. So maybe we should say this is the
GvR> "recommended" release. And then maybe we need to revise the
GvR> decision not to make a Windows installer. Or maybe we *do*
GvR> need to spend more effort backporting patches (not
GvR> necessarily PLabs, but *somebody*).
I think those are all good ideas that help promote the idea of a
long-lived stable baseline release.
GvR> OK, so I *am* proposing to do something different. Maybe
GvR> it's not very attractive to work on old releases. But Zope
GvR> Corp does it all the time (and the fact that Zope 2.x
GvR> requires Python 2.1.x may be an additional motivator).
Note that Jim often brings up his opinion that the /only/ way to
guarantee Zope Z.Y.Z works on Python X.Y.Z is to distribute Python
with Zope. (This harkens back to JWZ's much earlier opinion that
Netscape could never ship using dynamic libraries, because you really
can't trust anything about the end user's system). We're really
touching on much deeper flaws in software development, with no good
answers, IMO.
we-fear-change-ly y'rs,
-Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4