[Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review

Tom Lazar lists at tomster.org
Fri Feb 1 15:03:23 UTC 2008

i think the penalty aspect martin mentions (apart from the effort  
involved in renaming, which could be spent easily elsewhere) pretty  
much does it for me. i rest my case.


tom (who may be vain, but not passionately so ;-)

On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar <lists at tomster.org> wrote:
>> i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for
>> the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for
>> the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is
>> as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation,
>> extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the
>> author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the  
>> plone
>> namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too.
> Renaming things means moving module paths. That breaks persistent
> objects and third party imports. It effectively penalises those who
> used this package (and and thus helped make it stable enough for the
> core) already and forks the original code base in case people already
> depend on it and thus need to continue to develop it.
> We are doing plenty of designed-for-the-core packages in the plone.*
> namespace, and honestly I don't think we need to be so vain that we
> can't use packages not in our namespace. I think it's a very nice,
> positive statement that we don't, in fact.
> Martin

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list