Mailing List Archive

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without knowing how
> much maintenance zope.org will see

Assume zero, that's all it's ever received in the past...

> and what degree of complexity your Plone
> projects were.

From dead simple to very complex...

> plone.org doesn't see much continuous maintenance.

So it doesn't get upgraded when there's a Plone release?

>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
>
> What complexity would you get rid of exactly?

Every single line of code that Zope.org doesn't use ;-)

cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Chris Withers wrote:
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without
>> knowing how
>> much maintenance zope.org will see
>
> Assume zero, that's all it's ever received in the past...
>

Would you ever expect a customer's site to live with zero maintenance
indefinitely? Perhaps if it was less of a pain to maintain and the
contributor agreement and other red tape didn't make it so hard to
volunteer, someone would be able to spend a few hours a month making sure
the site is alive.



>> plone.org doesn't see much continuous maintenance.
>
> So it doesn't get upgraded when there's a Plone release?
>

Yes it does. Which means that if zope.org didn't deviate too much from the
plone.org setup (i.e. it didn't do anything crazy and unsupported) it would
likely migrate just as easily as plone.org itself (which would be the first
test anyway).



>>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
>>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
>>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
>>
>> What complexity would you get rid of exactly?
>
> Every single line of code that Zope.org doesn't use ;-)
>

So instead of installing a piece of software that is built for your use
case, is proven to work very well in a near identical deployment (you've yet
to tell me how zope.org would be much different from the current plone.org)
and comes with the support and experience of people who have built that very
same website, you'd like to spend a lot of time and effort building a custom
solution that is tailored to your use case slightly more exactly, and in the
process land whoever builds that with all the support, maintenance and
future-proofing burden.

And the argument that this was the original promise of Plone on zope.org
would be valid if only for the fact that zope.org is running an out-of-date,
heavily (and probably unnecessarily) customised version of Plone that was
not built on the principles that make it possible to rely on the Plone
community to maintain the software. In fact, I believe the Plone community
rasised some concerns the last time around that zope.org was being built in
such a way that the Plone community would be unable to help maintain that
particular branch of the software. That doesn't mean that it's impossible
for the Plone community to work with whoever takes charge of building a new
zope.org, to learn from their experiences with plone.org and with building
customer sites.

What's your professional estimate on the amount of time and effort it would
take to build, test, configure and deploy a codebase for zope.org that meets
your (still unclear to me) criteria? How much would the opportunity cost of
that be at the rates you charge your customers?

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3259439
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On 3/3/06, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
>>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
>>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
>>
>> Does anybody have a feeling for if it is feasible to run the
>> PloneProducts or whatever the name was, on pure CMF?
>
> Before NZO was launched, Sidnei provided a URL that ran NZO without
> Plone, only CMF.
>
>

What's NZO? The current zope.org?

I'll note that the community-support modules we've built for plone.org -
PloneHelpCenter (plone.org/documentation) and PloneSoftwareCenter
(plone.org/products) that in many ways (along with the great work of wiggy,
geoff and others to improve the setup with LDAP, PAS, ZEO, Squid cacheing
etc.) account for the success of plone.org at the moment, are built for
Plone, not CMF, and thus would require Plone underneath.

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3259473
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

I understand Chris reluctance to use Plone, but I must say that of the
two scenarios:

1. Writing a new Product managements software from scratch.
and
2. Using the one on Plone.org.

I'm way more worried about the amount of maintenance in the first
case, since fixing bugs will be solely up to the peope managing
zope.org. And then I don't even count the time it would take to write
the software in the first place.
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Lennart Regebro-2 wrote:
>
> I understand Chris reluctance to use Plone, but I must say that of the
> two scenarios:
>
> 1. Writing a new Product managements software from scratch.
> and
> 2. Using the one on Plone.org.
>
> I'm way more worried about the amount of maintenance in the first
> case, since fixing bugs will be solely up to the peope managing
> zope.org. And then I don't even count the time it would take to write
> the software in the first place.
>

Precisely my point, and precisely the problem that the current zope.org
suffers from (it was based on Plone, sure, but it was badly mangled from
what I've been told to the point where the Plone community would no longer
be able to help maintain it).

Plone isn't perfect, and perhaps CPS, Silva, Drupal, whatever else meets our
requirements better, in which case use it. But there are two thousand open
source CMSs out there, and zope.org needs a CMS with a certain featureset
(not dissimilar to plone.org, which is why I'm protmoting Plone in the first
place, since plone.org runs on Plone and we've built certain modules around
the zope/plone development model that have worked well for plone.org).
Building our own (again) seems to be a very bad case of Not Invented Here.

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3260995
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:34:21AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
| ...(it was based on Plone, sure, but it was badly mangled from
| what I've been told to the point where the Plone community would no longer
| be able to help maintain it).

Call that a hoax. Other than the skin, and custom products on top of
it, and a custom workflow I can't think of any customization that
would make it unmantainable.

--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.
http://enfoldsystems.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Sidnei da Silva-2 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:34:21AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> | ...(it was based on Plone, sure, but it was badly mangled from
> | what I've been told to the point where the Plone community would no
> longer
> | be able to help maintain it).
>
> Call that a hoax. Other than the skin, and custom products on top of
> it, and a custom workflow I can't think of any customization that
> would make it unmantainable.
>

Not sure what this means ... were you involved in building the current site
or do you know its architecture? As I've said, my comments are based on what
I've been told by people who were involved in the original decision to use
Plone (pre 1.0 as I understand, with heavy internal customisations). My
feeling is exactly that there's no *need* for zope.org customisations that
would make it hard to maintain/migrate in the same way plone.org is
maintained and migrated right now.

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3262596
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 02:06 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> Chris Withers wrote:
> >
> > Martin Aspeli wrote:
> >> I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without
> >> knowing how
> >> much maintenance zope.org will see
> >
> > Assume zero, that's all it's ever received in the past...
This is not true.
>
> Would you ever expect a customer's site to live with zero maintenance
> indefinitely? Perhaps if it was less of a pain to maintain and the
> contributor agreement and other red tape didn't make it so hard to
> volunteer, someone would be able to spend a few hours a month making sure
> the site is alive.
Hopefully the bar is decreased to contribute.
>
>
>
> >> plone.org doesn't see much continuous maintenance.
> >
> > So it doesn't get upgraded when there's a Plone release?
> >
>
> Yes it does. Which means that if zope.org didn't deviate too much from the
> plone.org setup (i.e. it didn't do anything crazy and unsupported) it would
> likely migrate just as easily as plone.org itself (which would be the first
> test anyway).
In the future, zope.org (will) migrate easily. Before I left ZC, I went
into the plone channel asking for assistance, and when it was learned
the version of Plone we were on, there was little encouragement for any
sensible migration. That said, it doesn't matter today. Today zope.org
sucks and we're working to fix that.
>
>
>
> >>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
> >>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
> >>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
> >>
> >> What complexity would you get rid of exactly?
zope.org shouldn't have membership - people should not be able to dump
crap on it which can easily bit-rot. That said, there should be a site
for people to use as a sandbox or playground, but where the 'front site'
for the technology comes in, it should be limited in scope to promoting
the software, providing excellent docs, software (zope.org CVS only) and
promoting the Zope Vision. Anything that does not directly contribute
to this is not necessary and should go.


Andrew
> >
> > Every single line of code that Zope.org doesn't use ;-)
> >
>
> So instead of installing a piece of software that is built for your use
> case, is proven to work very well in a near identical deployment (you've yet
> to tell me how zope.org would be much different from the current plone.org)
> and comes with the support and experience of people who have built that very
> same website, you'd like to spend a lot of time and effort building a custom
> solution that is tailored to your use case slightly more exactly, and in the
> process land whoever builds that with all the support, maintenance and
> future-proofing burden.
>
> And the argument that this was the original promise of Plone on zope.org
> would be valid if only for the fact that zope.org is running an out-of-date,
> heavily (and probably unnecessarily) customised version of Plone that was
> not built on the principles that make it possible to rely on the Plone
> community to maintain the software. In fact, I believe the Plone community
> rasised some concerns the last time around that zope.org was being built in
> such a way that the Plone community would be unable to help maintain that
> particular branch of the software. That doesn't mean that it's impossible
> for the Plone community to work with whoever takes charge of building a new
> zope.org, to learn from their experiences with plone.org and with building
> customer sites.
>
> What's your professional estimate on the amount of time and effort it would
> take to build, test, configure and deploy a codebase for zope.org that meets
> your (still unclear to me) criteria? How much would the opportunity cost of
> that be at the rates you charge your customers?
>
> Martin
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3259439
> Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 13:05 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I understand Chris reluctance to use Plone, but I must say that of the
> two scenarios:
>
> 1. Writing a new Product managements software from scratch.
> and
We don't require a 'product management' software "from scratch". Base
Zope, CMF, CPS, Plone likely with some minimal degree of effort will all
work. The first two likely require additions while the later require
deletions. Most of zope.org's problems are scope related in my opinion.
With our efforts to reduce the scope and focus of the site, the hardest
task is organizing the new content, migrating anything worth while from
the current zope.org and finalizing the new UI - which was done this
weekend.

It's coming along.

Andrew
> 2. Using the one on Plone.org.
>
> I'm way more worried about the amount of maintenance in the first
> case, since fixing bugs will be solely up to the peope managing
> zope.org. And then I don't even count the time it would take to write
> the software in the first place.
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 10:31 -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:34:21AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> | ...(it was based on Plone, sure, but it was badly mangled from
> | what I've been told to the point where the Plone community would no longer
> | be able to help maintain it).
>
> Call that a hoax. Other than the skin, and custom products on top of
> it, and a custom workflow I can't think of any customization that
> would make it unmantainable.
When I sought help before leaving ZC in #plone - the problem was
version. We're making progress, and at this point the underlying
framework is really irrelevant. Zope.org's requirements are very low
with a changed scope.


Andrew

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Andrew Sawyers wrote:
>
>
> In the future, zope.org (will) migrate easily. Before I left ZC, I went
> into the plone channel asking for assistance, and when it was learned
> the version of Plone we were on, there was little encouragement for any
> sensible migration. That said, it doesn't matter today. Today zope.org
> sucks and we're working to fix that.

Which version was it, do you remember?



> zope.org shouldn't have membership - people should not be able to dump
> crap on it which can easily bit-rot. That said, there should be a site
> for people to use as a sandbox or playground, but where the 'front site'
> for the technology comes in, it should be limited in scope to promoting
> the software, providing excellent docs, software (zope.org CVS only) and
> promoting the Zope Vision. Anything that does not directly contribute
> to this is not necessary and should go.
>

Probably sensible. That said, we've had a lot of success on plone.org by
letting people have accounts (but no member folder) so that they can
contribute products (plone.org/products) and documentation
(plone.org/documentation), that goes through a light review cycle before
being published. The Plone products that drive this also help maintain that
documentation e.g. by letting us mark things as outdated, by marking things
for different audiences/sections etc.

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3263175
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On 3/6/06, Andrew Sawyers <andrew@sawdog.com> wrote:
> We don't require a 'product management' software "from scratch". Base
> Zope, CMF, CPS, Plone likely with some minimal degree of effort will all
> work.

Well, obviously I donät suggest that we should start with writing a
compiler and build up from that when I said "from scratch". :)

> The first two likely require additions while the later require
> deletions.

CPS has no product management support. Making one does mean creating a
bunch of portal document types, and some screens to display things in
the right way. This should also preferably be cretaed in some way that
is not TTW, as we want verison handling and so on. It therefore means
creating a Product. From "scratch", if you like.

> Most of zope.org's problems are scope related in my opinion.

That's the feeling I have too.

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 06:30:29AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
| Not sure what this means ... were you involved in building the current site
| or do you know its architecture? As I've said, my comments are based on what
| I've been told by people who were involved in the original decision to use
| Plone (pre 1.0 as I understand, with heavy internal customisations). My
| feeling is exactly that there's no *need* for zope.org customisations that
| would make it hard to maintain/migrate in the same way plone.org is
| maintained and migrated right now.

I made the original decision and I've put together the migration and
all that, alone. Then I've left the project just before launch. I'm
pretty sure it was Plone 1.0 or a 1.0 rc. Some customizations seem to
have been made since then, but nothing serious.

--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.
http://enfoldsystems.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 07:06 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the future, zope.org (will) migrate easily. Before I left ZC, I went
> > into the plone channel asking for assistance, and when it was learned
> > the version of Plone we were on, there was little encouragement for any
> > sensible migration. That said, it doesn't matter today. Today zope.org
> > sucks and we're working to fix that.
>
> Which version was it, do you remember?
>
>
>
> > zope.org shouldn't have membership - people should not be able to dump
> > crap on it which can easily bit-rot. That said, there should be a site
> > for people to use as a sandbox or playground, but where the 'front site'
> > for the technology comes in, it should be limited in scope to promoting
> > the software, providing excellent docs, software (zope.org CVS only) and
> > promoting the Zope Vision. Anything that does not directly contribute
> > to this is not necessary and should go.
> >
>
> Probably sensible. That said, we've had a lot of success on plone.org by
> letting people have accounts (but no member folder) so that they can
> contribute products (plone.org/products) and documentation
> (plone.org/documentation), that goes through a light review cycle before
> being published. The Plone products that drive this also help maintain that
> documentation e.g. by letting us mark things as outdated, by marking things
> for different audiences/sections etc.
I don't think the bar should be high to contribute, but and I presume my
goal would be met by not allowing members folders. Early on, my goal
was to reduce kruft and bit-rot content which people could throw on and
abandon.

Andrew
>
> Martin
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3263175
> Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 12:26 -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 06:30:29AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> | Not sure what this means ... were you involved in building the current site
> | or do you know its architecture? As I've said, my comments are based on what
> | I've been told by people who were involved in the original decision to use
> | Plone (pre 1.0 as I understand, with heavy internal customisations). My
> | feeling is exactly that there's no *need* for zope.org customisations that
> | would make it hard to maintain/migrate in the same way plone.org is
> | maintained and migrated right now.
>
> I made the original decision and I've put together the migration and
> all that, alone. Then I've left the project just before launch. I'm
> pretty sure it was Plone 1.0 or a 1.0 rc. Some customizations seem to
> have been made since then, but nothing serious.
The only "serious" thing which I found daunting the last time I was
trying to debug a problem with the "software" product was the HUGE
number of customized skins. With no clue why, and the amount of effort
to sort through them all, It left me with a lot of contempt for whomever
did it and didn't fix them in CVS.

Andrew
>

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 06:30 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>
> Sidnei da Silva-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:34:21AM -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > | ...(it was based on Plone, sure, but it was badly mangled from
> > | what I've been told to the point where the Plone community would no
> > longer
> > | be able to help maintain it).
> >
> > Call that a hoax. Other than the skin, and custom products on top of
> > it, and a custom workflow I can't think of any customization that
> > would make it unmantainable.
> >
>
> Not sure what this means ... were you involved in building the current site
> or do you know its architecture? As I've said, my comments are based on what
> I've been told by people who were involved in the original decision to use
> Plone (pre 1.0 as I understand, with heavy internal customisations). My
> feeling is exactly that there's no *need* for zope.org customisations that
> would make it hard to maintain/migrate in the same way plone.org is
> maintained and migrated right now.
I believe it is pre 1.0 - but I don't think outside of the previous
reply to Sidnei (i.e. skins customizations) there is a lot of
customizations. I'm certain it's a problem of general look (which is
solved by Tom V.) and crap content which is useless to promoting the
technology in a sensible manner.

Andrew
>
> Martin
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3262596
> Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Andrew Sawyers wrote:
>
> I believe it is pre 1.0 - but I don't think outside of the previous
> reply to Sidnei (i.e. skins customizations) there is a lot of
> customizations. I'm certain it's a problem of general look (which is
> solved by Tom V.) and crap content which is useless to promoting the
> technology in a sensible manner.
>

As a matter of policy, the Plone community supports migrations (as in ... if
the migration doesn't work and you didn't do anything insane, you should
file it as a bug and we'll aim to fix it) from any released version or RC to
any released version or RC.

The migration story has gotten a lot better since 2.0, by the way, as Plone
and particularly its testing framework has evolved.

I'd strongly agree that the problem is almost always information
architecture and content maintenance rather than software maintenance,
though. It's just beneficial when the technology doesn't get in the way or
take up all your time to develop.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3264285
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:36:10AM -0500, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
| The only "serious" thing which I found daunting the last time I was
| trying to debug a problem with the "software" product was the HUGE
| number of customized skins. With no clue why, and the amount of effort
| to sort through them all, It left me with a lot of contempt for whomever
| did it and didn't fix them in CVS.

Which clearly reflects that the person in charge of mantaining the
site after the public launch didn't care much about 'mantainability'
and blamed it all on Plone, where this 'maintenance problem' of having
custom skins would equally affect any CMF or CPS based site.

--
Sidnei da Silva
Enfold Systems, LLC.
http://enfoldsystems.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Sidnei da Silva-2 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:36:10AM -0500, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> | The only "serious" thing which I found daunting the last time I was
> | trying to debug a problem with the "software" product was the HUGE
> | number of customized skins. With no clue why, and the amount of effort
> | to sort through them all, It left me with a lot of contempt for whomever
> | did it and didn't fix them in CVS.
>
> Which clearly reflects that the person in charge of mantaining the
> site after the public launch didn't care much about 'mantainability'
> and blamed it all on Plone, where this 'maintenance problem' of having
> custom skins would equally affect any CMF or CPS based site.
>
>

I'll note that we see customers making these kinds of mistakes as well, and
we've been trying to make it easier to develop re-usable skins on the
filesystem. In particular, see David Convent's DIYPloneStyle skeleton
product, at http://plone.org/products/diyplonestyle, and the associated
tutorial at http://plone.org/documentation/tutorial/creating-custom-style

Martin
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Zope-2-web-site-t1182227.html#a3264494
Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 13:09 -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:36:10AM -0500, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> | The only "serious" thing which I found daunting the last time I was
> | trying to debug a problem with the "software" product was the HUGE
> | number of customized skins. With no clue why, and the amount of effort
> | to sort through them all, It left me with a lot of contempt for whomever
> | did it and didn't fix them in CVS.
>
> Which clearly reflects that the person in charge of mantaining the
> site after the public launch didn't care much about 'mantainability'
> and blamed it all on Plone, where this 'maintenance problem' of having
> custom skins would equally affect any CMF or CPS based site.
I agree the problem isn't the frame works, in this case anyhow.

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Andrew Sawyers wrote:
>>>> knowing how
>>>> much maintenance zope.org will see
>>> Assume zero, that's all it's ever received in the past...
> This is not true.

Sorry, I meant on the software side. I didn't mean to dismiss the hard
work you and others have done in keeping the damn thing running at all...

cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web