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