Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

I'm not so sure that i would remove buildout at this point, for development setups.
It is robust and well known.
There is not much advantages in change this here.
But if you change it, make sure that it is very clear how to do all the things we use to be able to do with a traditional setup.
So far i have seen a bit of a wild west in new buildout free setups.
We need well documented and tested standards here.
When we reach this point, we could also rework the plonecli templates to use the new approach.
But i would like to see it really working well for a while, before going there.

@MrTango is there a roadmap for the switch? I see the plone/meta config in many packages of the plone.xxx namespace. Plone's containers are pip-based. I didn't know what the right way was. I use pip based setups with mxdev in all my packages and have no problems. but this is a discussion with religious potential ;-)

Ok, i had a look at the current meta setup, looks good and is recommended also for addons.
If everything works and the README points the developers in the right direction, all good.
I'll have a closer look and play with it as soon as i can.
Eventually, this will become also standard for addons made by plonecli.
But I'm not in a hurry with it.
Let's battle proof it before we do that.

@MrTango i have setup a matrix, see my comment here