Chris Withers wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Chris Withers
>> wrote:
>>> ...is currently useless, as far as I can see.
>> I thought the -p option was an artifact of zdaemon, which zopectl just
>> didn't support. I took it as a case of the lower level API's l
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
>> ...is currently useless, as far as I can see.
>
> I thought the -p option was an artifact of zdaemon, which zopectl just
> didn't support. I took it as a case of the lower level API's leaking
> through.
I think i
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> ...is currently useless, as far as I can see.
I thought the -p option was an artifact of zdaemon, which zopectl just
didn't support. I took it as a case of the lower level API's leaking
through.
> I think the attached patch fixes this, but
...is currently useless, as far as I can see.
This stops you specifying a different location for runzope, which is
handy if you're doing buildout-based stuff that uses a deployment.
I think the attached patch fixes this, but I'm wondering:
- are these are tests for this area
- why does self.pr
