Re: [Zope-dev] Bug day report
Hi Tres, On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 07:59:18AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > Roman, I landed my version of the fix in 'zope.testrunner', but didn't > touch it in 'zope.testing', since you were working on it. I was rushing > a little because I wanted to release 'zope.testrunner', but wanted to > check with you first. The patch is here: > > http://svn.zope.org/zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py?rev=113540&view=diff&r1=113540&r2=113539&p1=zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py&p2=/zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py > > I'm fine with letting you land it in zope.testing, or even tweak it on > the zope.testruner side, if you see a better fix. Thank you. I actually had troubles running all tests in zope.testrunner. I need to check why to be sure, to avoid commiting something broken. I usually prefer to let someone more experienced review my code, although it seems to be not worth it for this little fix. So to clarify - can I commit the patch to zope.testrunner after I verified that the tests are working fine on my local sandbox? Cheers, -- Roman Joost www: http://www.romanofski.de email: ro...@bromeco.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ZTK Package Metadatas
Couple of follow-up notes.. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Justin Ryan wrote: > Howdy.. > > Recently, I worked with Tres to remove the funky old "$Id$" type lines > from all the files in ZTK packages, and while touching every file in > every package, roughly, I came up with some other thoughts on how to > improve consistency, which are detailed in this launchpad bug: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/zopetoolkit-project/+bug/588782 > > Today, I started by changing the setup.py for zope.browsermenu based > on how zope.component is setup, and a Bzr branch is attached to this > issue. > This was really sparked by, som > As mentioned in this issue, I also noted that many packages have no > categorization data. > > I originally, in followup to another issue where I changed all the > zope3-dev emails to zope-dev, and started futzing with the > categorization to change 'zope3' tag to 'zope', and remove the > Framework :: Zope3 bit, which was discouraged by someone over IRC > because other people's metadata is linked to this, so I abandoned > those. > > I feel it's notable that this bug's original title focused on the > general idea that package metadatas are inconsistent, and if there > isn't already a policy, we should set some forth. I notice some > packages even note specific versions of Python, esp. zope.interface, > maybe we should work on that in others. > > I'm sure people are like, "Oh, why so focused on all this fritzy > stuff?", but the thing is, touching each file in each package really > helps me to gain familiarity with a system I've always wanted to be > more of a contributor to, and am proud to have begun down the road > for. > > As the Framework :: thing, does anyone object to two additions on top of > Zope3: > > Framework :: Zope Toolkit > Framework :: BlueBream > Obviously this would need some coordination with catalog-sig, and I redacted my willingness to work with them this week after in the course of 20 minutes or so of volunteering to help with PyPI issues I was accused of trying to grift the PSF for funds and ten other things because people can't count the number of ">" before each line of a quoted message. > I know the bluebream thing is wierd, I know there has been some tumult > in the community lately, I don't know where all that really lies, or > how it divides folks. I do know that the BB brand has helped to have > the first ever message I've seen asking basically, by someone who > decided for sure they want to use Python, and worked a bit with Django > which is very tasty the first day, apparently, and then found they > wanted to use Zope techs. > > Anyway, just touching base. What should the metadata reflect, etc.. > > Most of all, does anyone mind my making sure that all packages pull in > their doctests, if available, to display on the front page of pypi. > And of course, I know how Tres feels about doctests. I agree, they aren't the best docs (many packages like zope.annotation don't show how to register zcml, just how to test the code), or the best tests, having one that is both is better than neither of each, and even weak doctests in pypi are often informative.. > Also, have we considered a zope.org site which just pulls all these > doctests together, because obviously as PyPI is often down, and that > needs to be fixed, we can also reduce our reliance upon it. > > If I want to know how a zope.* package works, i can always google its' > name and get a PyPI page. Howabout we try to supercede that with a > documentation-only URL that links to a separate download location. > And not count the visits against a Postgres database. > > Best! Happy Zoping! > > Justin Alan Ryan > [ bitmonk ] > ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] ZTK Package Metadatas
Howdy.. Recently, I worked with Tres to remove the funky old "$Id$" type lines from all the files in ZTK packages, and while touching every file in every package, roughly, I came up with some other thoughts on how to improve consistency, which are detailed in this launchpad bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/zopetoolkit-project/+bug/588782 Today, I started by changing the setup.py for zope.browsermenu based on how zope.component is setup, and a Bzr branch is attached to this issue. As mentioned in this issue, I also noted that many packages have no categorization data. I originally, in followup to another issue where I changed all the zope3-dev emails to zope-dev, and started futzing with the categorization to change 'zope3' tag to 'zope', and remove the Framework :: Zope3 bit, which was discouraged by someone over IRC because other people's metadata is linked to this, so I abandoned those. I feel it's notable that this bug's original title focused on the general idea that package metadatas are inconsistent, and if there isn't already a policy, we should set some forth. I notice some packages even note specific versions of Python, esp. zope.interface, maybe we should work on that in others. I'm sure people are like, "Oh, why so focused on all this fritzy stuff?", but the thing is, touching each file in each package really helps me to gain familiarity with a system I've always wanted to be more of a contributor to, and am proud to have begun down the road for. As the Framework :: thing, does anyone object to two additions on top of Zope3: Framework :: Zope Toolkit Framework :: BlueBream I know the bluebream thing is wierd, I know there has been some tumult in the community lately, I don't know where all that really lies, or how it divides folks. I do know that the BB brand has helped to have the first ever message I've seen asking basically, by someone who decided for sure they want to use Python, and worked a bit with Django which is very tasty the first day, apparently, and then found they wanted to use Zope techs. Anyway, just touching base. What should the metadata reflect, etc.. Most of all, does anyone mind my making sure that all packages pull in their doctests, if available, to display on the front page of pypi. Also, have we considered a zope.org site which just pulls all these doctests together, because obviously as PyPI is often down, and that needs to be fixed, we can also reduce our reliance upon it. If I want to know how a zope.* package works, i can always google its' name and get a PyPI page. Howabout we try to supercede that with a documentation-only URL that links to a separate download location. And not count the visits against a Postgres database. Best! Happy Zoping! Justin Alan Ryan [ bitmonk ] ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] connection commit ordering
Hi, In ERP5[1], which is CMF based, we have a number of strategies for high performance and scalability. One of these is that we have ZSQLCatalog extensively. The other is that we delay execution of potentially expensive operations (like indexing) for background execution. For the latter, we store the information about background tasks to be executed (path to affected object, method to call, serialization and ordering tags) in an SQL table. Background requests (clock-server) then look up the activity table to either distribute the tasks between the nodes of a ZEO cluster or to execute a previously distributed task. In one specific client with a very high volume of transactions, we were experiencing failures in these background executions. We traced it, among other things, to the ordering of connections during commit. Here is what happened. 1. An object in the ZODB 2. the .reindexObject() method of this object schedules a task for the real indexation to the background processes, using a ZMySQLDA connector. 3. The transaction machinery performs the commit, ordering the connections according to the .sortKey() method of each connection: 3.1. All ZMySQLDA connectors involved, since their .sortKey() returns the integer 1 (see Shared.ZRDB.TM.TM.sortKey() ) 3.2. all mounted ClientStorages or FileStorages involved, whose .sortKey()s are strings which sort after integers. If in between 3.1 and 3.2 a background process tries to execute the scheduled activity commited on 3.1, then it will see the new information on the 'background-tasks' table but the object to be indexed will not yet be in the ZODB causing the activity to fail. The solution we found involves changing the result of .sortKey() for the transaction manager of the database connection, but we can't do this globally for all connectors, otherwise we could have the connector for the SQL based catalog being committed after the connector for the background tasks, and we would end up with a similar error situation. The adapter for the background tasks must necessarily commit after all data needed by the background tasks was already committed. By the way, this issue is completely separate from the two-phase-commit discussion that we had recently, since all the connectors involved here are fully transactional. At Nexedi, we concluded that we might need to be able to customize the sortKey() per database-adapter instance in Zope, since different adapters might need to be committed in different order. Unfortunately it looks like the connection sorting machinery was intended only to obtain a consistent ordering to avoid deadlocks from competing clients, instead of establishing dependency relationships between the connectors, since there seems to be no standard on what the sorting keys should be (they're integers for Shared.ZRDB.TM.TM and strings for ZODB storages). To make this easier without requiring reimplementation of the .sortKey() method in all database connectors, I took the liberty of creating a branch of Zope 2.12 [2] that adds a .setSortKey() method to Shared.ZRDB.TM.TM and I'd welcome opinions. In any case, we were left wondering if others have faced similar issues with the commit order and if others have any opinions on this problem. Cheers, Leo [1] http://erp5.com/ [2] http://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/rochael-TM_sortKey/ ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.wineggbuilder
Hi. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote: > The buildbot seems to work fine. > I'll let it do the following packages tonight: What exactly is "do" here? It builds binary Windows eggs for those packages for various Python versions I'd assume. What does it do with those eggs? Does it store them at some publicly accessible URL? Or does it do some automatic upload to PyPi? Thanks! Hanno ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.wineggbuilder
Hello Hanno, It gets the released versions from pypi. (See the .ini for version/platform constraints) Checks if there are binary eggs for the various platforms. If missing, builds them and uploads to pypi. That's all for now. Thursday, June 17, 2010, 3:08:37 PM, you wrote: HS> Hi. HS> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote: >> The buildbot seems to work fine. >> I'll let it do the following packages tonight: HS> What exactly is "do" here? HS> It builds binary Windows eggs for those packages for various Python HS> versions I'd assume. What does it do with those eggs? Does it store HS> them at some publicly accessible URL? Or does it do some automatic HS> upload to PyPi? HS> Thanks! HS> Hanno -- Best regards, Adam GROSZERmailto:agros...@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: Swipple's Rule of Order: He who shouts the loudest has the floor. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope.wineggbuilder
Hello, The buildbot seems to work fine. I'll let it do the following packages tonight: - zope.container - zope.hookable - zope.i18nmessageid - zope.index - zope.interface - zope.proxy - zope.security More details at: svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Sandbox/adamg/zope.wineggbuilder/trunk/rackspace.ini Speak up now if you have a problem with it. -- Best regards, Adam GROSZER mailto:agros...@gmail.com -- Quote of the day: Never give an inch! ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 55 OK, 5 Failed, 4 Unknown
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Christian Theune wrote: > On 06/17/2010 01:58 PM, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote: >> Unknown >> --- >> >> Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 1 >> From: ct at gocept.com >> Date: Wed Jun 16 20:30:17 EDT 2010 >> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015374.html >> >> Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 101 >> From: ct at gocept.com >> Date: Wed Jun 16 20:35:59 EDT 2010 >> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015375.html >> >> Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 178 >> From: ct at gocept.com >> Date: Wed Jun 16 20:40:56 EDT 2010 >> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015376.html >> >> Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 75 >> From: ct at gocept.com >> Date: Wed Jun 16 20:45:22 EDT 2010 >> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015377.html > > Meh, those ended up having the wrong subject signature. I fixed them for > tomorrow. It's a little hard to see which projects these reports belong to. Is this something you added to the subject? Like "FAILED: Total languishing bugs in Zope 2: " Hanno ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 55 OK, 5 Failed, 4 Unknown
On 06/17/2010 01:58 PM, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote: > Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. > Period Wed Jun 16 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Thu Jun 17 12:00:00 2010 UTC. > There were 64 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 11 from ccomb at free.fr, 5 from > ct at gocept.com, 42 from jdriessen at thehealthagency.com. > > > Unknown > --- > > Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 1 > From: ct at gocept.com > Date: Wed Jun 16 20:30:17 EDT 2010 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015374.html > > Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 101 > From: ct at gocept.com > Date: Wed Jun 16 20:35:59 EDT 2010 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015375.html > > Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 178 > From: ct at gocept.com > Date: Wed Jun 16 20:40:56 EDT 2010 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015376.html > > Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 75 > From: ct at gocept.com > Date: Wed Jun 16 20:45:22 EDT 2010 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015377.html Meh, those ended up having the wrong subject signature. I fixed them for tomorrow. Feel free to triage bugs now. :) -- Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Bud day report
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roman Joost wrote: > I've spent my time on two bugs: > > * I've tried implementing a test case for #118088 (Moving a folder to > one of its subfolders causes a system error) > > * had a look at #221151 (StartUpFailure.shortDescription() fails with > AttributeError), which seemed to missed just a super call. Turned out > my assumption was wrong and it was fixed by Tres. Roman, I landed my version of the fix in 'zope.testrunner', but didn't touch it in 'zope.testing', since you were working on it. I was rushing a little because I wanted to release 'zope.testrunner', but wanted to check with you first. The patch is here: http://svn.zope.org/zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py?rev=113540&view=diff&r1=113540&r2=113539&p1=zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py&p2=/zope.testrunner/trunk/src/zope/testrunner/find.py I'm fine with letting you land it in zope.testing, or even tweak it on the zope.testruner side, if you see a better fix. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkwaDhAACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ57EgCgoF/jLNLNdwpsAhNhPPNzcGDB oncAoJcnymdYwtc7YwqVWQsw4N0Y+bt3 =7AdS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 55 OK, 5 Failed, 4 Unknown
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Jun 16 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Thu Jun 17 12:00:00 2010 UTC. There were 64 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 11 from ccomb at free.fr, 5 from ct at gocept.com, 42 from jdriessen at thehealthagency.com. Test failures - Subject: FAILED: Repository policy check found errors in 460 projects From: ct at gocept.com Date: Wed Jun 16 21:12:48 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015378.html Subject: FAILED : BlueBream template / Python2.6.4 32bit linux From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Wed Jun 16 22:01:31 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015385.html Subject: FAILED : BlueBream template / Python2.4.6 32bit linux From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Wed Jun 16 22:01:32 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015386.html Subject: FAILED : BlueBream template / Python2.5.2 32bit linux From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Wed Jun 16 22:01:34 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015387.html Subject: FAILED : Zope Buildbot / ztk_win slave-win From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Thu Jun 17 07:33:50 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015402.html Unknown --- Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 1 From: ct at gocept.com Date: Wed Jun 16 20:30:17 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015374.html Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 101 From: ct at gocept.com Date: Wed Jun 16 20:35:59 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015375.html Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 178 From: ct at gocept.com Date: Wed Jun 16 20:40:56 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015376.html Subject: FAILURE: Total languishing bugs: 75 From: ct at gocept.com Date: Wed Jun 16 20:45:22 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015377.html Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 08:45:41 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015343.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 08:53:14 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015344.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 08:55:09 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015345.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 08:55:19 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015346.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / ztk slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:22:20 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015347.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:31:21 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015348.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:38:53 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015349.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:55:10 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015350.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:55:20 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015351.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:57:05 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015352.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 09:57:20 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015353.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 10:01:49 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015354.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 10:09:17 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015355.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 11:55:11 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015356.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2.12 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Wed Jun 16 11:55:24 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015357.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zope2 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com D
