Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.12 features
On 30.10.2008 21:41 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote: From a Zope perspective 2.11 should have had Python 2.5 support, but nobody cared enough to make it happen. We can support Python 2.4 and 2.5 alone in Zope 2.12 and release it in the next months. We should do a 2.12 very soon (before year end, likely), and it should retain 2.4 compatibility. What are our current needs for having a Python 2.5 compatible Zope 2 version (except it would be nice for having one). Being in sync with the latest Python 2.6 version is much more important than jumping on a half-dead horse like Python 2.5. Introducing another major Zope release with very little new exciting feature does not make sense to me at the time right now. It just adds another major release we have to support (we already support 2.9-2.11 and a bit 2.8) + the complexity for supporting two different Python versions for Zope 2.12. I am open to arguments but I really want to see why we need Zope 2.12 with Python 2.5 support this year (or at least very soon). In that case Plone will neither use 2.11 nor 2.12 but go straight for a Zope 2.13 including Python 2.6. A major release every six month would be desirable for us in that case. Right now I don't see anyone, who would be using those releases. If those people exist, please speak up. Plone isn't the only consumer of Zope2, although it is clearly the biggest one. Tres, what are you current needs and requirements (properly based on your Repoze project)? I agree that Plone isn't the only consumer but I wonder if all other consumers really have the need jumping on every train passing the train station. We have the luxury with four supported Zope 2 major release. I don't want a fith right now unless we are having very good reasons. Keeping an orderly succession of releases with good compatibility is important for the whole ecosystem (frankly, Plone should be willing to move to newer Zope versions even in a second dot release, but that is another debate). This is already the case (more or less). In my experience strategic consumers are possibly more interested in slower release cycles instead of getting major releases very often. I doubt that much people care about using Python 2.4 or Python 2.5 (I personally don't care much about Python 2.5)..other feature likes e.g. a new ZODB version with some cool new feature is more important for justifying a new major release. If Sidnei should be successful with making Plone 2.11 compatible with Python 2.5 then we might add inofficial support for Python 2.5 to the current Zope 2.11 release...but as stated earlier I would like to see some arguments why Python 2.5 compatiblity is necessary now and why Python 2.6 support at some time next year would not be good enough. Andreas begin:vcard fn:Andreas Jung n:Jung;Andreas org:ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG adr;quoted-printable:;;Charlottenstr. 37/1;T=C3=BCbingen;;72070;Germany email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:CEO tel;work:+49-7071-793376 tel;fax:+49-7071-7936840 tel;home:+49-7071-793257 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.zopyx.com version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 4 OK, 2 Failed
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Oct 30 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Fri Oct 31 12:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Test failures - Subject: FAILED (failures=3) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:12:28 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010398.html Subject: FAILED (failures=3) : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:13:58 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010399.html Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.7 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:06:24 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010394.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:07:55 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010395.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:09:25 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010396.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.5 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 30 22:10:58 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010397.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.12 features / roadmap
Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] From what I know of other consumers of Zope 2, it seems Haufe doesn't have a need for any of the Zope 2.12 features at this point, but is using Zope 2.11 / Zope 3.4 as a development base. There is no special need for a Zope 2.12 release from the Haufe side - we still have to catch up :-) Ditto for Silva (the catch up as well) -- Kit BLAKE · Infrae · http://infrae.com/ + 31 10 243 7051 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZCatalog caching with memcached
Hedley Roos wrote: Since memcached is distributed only a single Zope client needs to perform that query and the result is available to all other Zope clients. This is where you'll get the big win: no need to load all the catalog-related objects into the zodb cache on all the clients which has the twin drawbacks of needing to be done and trashing your zodb cache... And the cache is persistent as long as memcached runs, so you can merrily restart Zope instances and have a warm cache. I didn't even realise this until Roche pointed it out to me. Coool :-) cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Bounty for Breaking RestrictedPython?
Alan Runyan wrote: So maybe we could crowd source the RestrictedPython problem? I actually tried this at EPC this year: I was offering a beer for anyone who could break out of the test environment and a bottle of champagne for anyone who did so and provided a test and patch that fixed the problem. The problem I set turned out to be unfair though, because of the stinking pile that RestrictedPython is :-( (ie: How python scripts use it doesn't have much to do with the documented APIs *sigh) The challenge did, however, attract some interest. If framed correctly, this makes a great lightning talk and the 24hr focus in a conference setting means people do tend to get invovled. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Issues with restricted Python (was Re: Zope 2.12 - supported Python versions)
Shane Hathaway wrote: Yes, and if such a change leads to faster adoption of new Python releases by Zope, then it seems like a worthwhile effort. Instead of a tree mutator, RestrictedPython would use a tree copier with a filter. New Python features would initially not be supported at all, but that's better than accidentally, insecurely, supporting new features. This sounds like a great idea apart from the caveats I've already mentioned about breaking out of an environment comprised of only safe builtins, which no-one replied to yet. How would we get going on this? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.12 features
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote: On 30.10.2008 21:41 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote: What are our current needs for having a Python 2.5 compatible Zope 2 version (except it would be nice for having one). Being in sync with the latest Python 2.6 version is much more important than jumping on a half-dead horse like Python 2.5. Introducing another major Zope release with very little new exciting feature does not make sense to me at the time right now. It just adds another major release we have to support (we already support 2.9-2.11 and a bit 2.8) + the complexity for supporting two different Python versions for Zope 2.12. I am open to arguments but I really want to see why we need Zope 2.12 with Python 2.5 support this year (or at least very soon). In that case Plone will neither use 2.11 nor 2.12 but go straight for a Zope 2.13 including Python 2.6. A major release every six month would be desirable for us in that case. Right now I don't see anyone, who would be using those releases. If those people exist, please speak up. Plone isn't the only consumer of Zope2, although it is clearly the biggest one. Tres, what are you current needs and requirements (properly based on your Repoze project)? I agree that Plone isn't the only consumer but I wonder if all other consumers really have the need jumping on every train passing the train station. We have the luxury with four supported Zope 2 major release. I don't want a fith right now unless we are having very good reasons. I think we need to move toward 2.6 compatibility, but we need to give people a migration path, largely because 2.6 will break 3rd party apps in ways that 2.4 doesn't warn about. So, I would like to see a 2.12 which is explicity about bridging first to 2.5 support: that way, people get a chance to clean up the new deprecation warnings (e.g., for the 'with' keyword, etc.). If ZODB 3.9 lands in time, then a near-term release of Zope 2.12 could be this consolidation release (2.5 support, new ZODB, including maybe RelStorage, other work done to date). We could the focus trunk development on 2.6 compatibility, with the goal of releasing a 2.13 no later than Q3 next year. In the meantime, we can acknowledge that 2.8 and 2.9 are retired (no future work except maybe important security fixes), and announce that 2.10 will be retired after the 2.12 release: that may be incentive enough for Plone 3.3 to ship on 2.12, for instance. WRT repoze: except for the 'repoze.zope2' and 'repoze.plone' packages, we already have 2.5 / 2.6 support in hand, and in fact are deploying non-Zope2 customer applications using both versions. Keeping an orderly succession of releases with good compatibility is important for the whole ecosystem (frankly, Plone should be willing to move to newer Zope versions even in a second dot release, but that is another debate). This is already the case (more or less). In my experience strategic consumers are possibly more interested in slower release cycles instead of getting major releases very often. I doubt that much people care about using Python 2.4 or Python 2.5 (I personally don't care much about Python 2.5)..other feature likes e.g. a new ZODB version with some cool new feature is more important for justifying a new major release. If Sidnei should be successful with making Plone 2.11 compatible with Python 2.5 then we might add inofficial support for Python 2.5 to the current Zope 2.11 release...but as stated earlier I would like to see some arguments why Python 2.5 compatiblity is necessary now and why Python 2.6 support at some time next year would not be good enough. I don't see a win there, myself: I'd rather make an easier transition for 2.12 than spend resources on a potentially-destabilizing backport of 2.5 compatibility. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJC0Ia+gerLs4ltQ4RAv8MAKDJAgpzus+Oh86aH0RgbGEXh26EDgCfQUL/ cnb/9SyKbWUg/JwqmC7tv5w= =qvj8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
