On Nov 8, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
How about zope.transaction?
Guido recently told me that people in the Python community at
large assume that anything in the Zope namespace is assumed to be
Zope specific, so I'd rather not put it there.
Does it matter? People who are
Hi,
this bug https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/zodb/+bug/137739 needs a
decision whether:
- we want after commit hooks to be called on abort (interface
documentation and tests contradict each other)
- we want to backport this from the trunk to 3.8
Christian
--
gocept gmbh co. kg -
On Nov 9, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
How about zope.transaction?
Guido recently told me that people in the Python community at
large assume that anything in the Zope namespace is assumed to be
Zope specific, so I'd rather not
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
It also contains TimeStamp, which will get moved out of persistent.
Why?
I don't see any uses of TimeStamp by the transaction package. In
your new package, it is only used by its tests.
The tests work (reqt's are downloaded) if you do
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
It also contains TimeStamp, which will get moved out of persistent.
Why?
I don't see any uses of TimeStamp by the transaction package. In
your new package, it is only used by its tests.
On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
It also contains TimeStamp, which will get moved out of persistent.
Why?
I don't see any uses of TimeStamp by the transaction package. In
On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
It also contains TimeStamp, which will get moved out of persistent.
Why?
I don't see any uses of TimeStamp by the transaction package. In
On Friday 09 November 2007, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Log message for revision 81637:
Revert the splitup of zope.app.securitypolicy in the stable 3.4.x line
(it will be confined to the trunk/3.5.x line). We're doing this by creating
the 3.4.x branch based on the last working release,
I'm studying the ZEO cache-file implementation. I'd like to remove
version support from the trunk. Would anyone object if I changed the
magic number on the trunk (3.9) to reflect that cache data records no-
longer contain version information? This would mean that persistent
cache files
On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Yawn. IMO, the test command in setuptools is a waste of time,
because it doesn't work with anything else.
It runs all the tests, even the doctests, if thats what you mean.
See the additional_tests hair in the test modules.
My point is
On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
Yawn. IMO, the test command in setuptools is a waste of time,
because it doesn't work with anything else.
It runs all the tests, even the doctests, if thats what you
mean. See the
+1
On Nov 9, 2007 9:46 AM, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm studying the ZEO cache-file implementation. I'd like to remove
version support from the trunk. Would anyone object if I changed the
magic number on the trunk (3.9) to reflect that cache data records no-
longer contain
On Nov 9, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
In the meantime, I've gotten rid of 'zope.transaction' and I've
created a new top-level 'transaction' package at http://
svn.zope.org/transaction/ . All its tests pass. It depends
only on 'zope.interface', and requires 'zope.testing'
On Nov 9, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
BTW, it would be nice to now remove the transaction package from
the ZODB trunk and make it a dependency.
Yes. ZODB's setup.py is polyglotic... it works if setuptools isn't
installed. I suspect it shouldn't continue to given that it now
14 matches
Mail list logo
