Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm obviously for ploneenv/workingenv.
I'm obviously a bit biased towards the buildout based approach since I
worked on it, but I worked on it because I was never very happy with the
way workingenv-in-instances worked. ploneenv makes that better and
slicker, actually,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Nope. Windows support for zopectl is a lot harder then just some path
fiddling. But the real issue with it is not really something that is an
argument for ploneout, I just took the time to implement it in it, it
could be a separate package as well. The basic problem
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Nope. Windows support for zopectl is a lot harder then just some path
fiddling. But the real issue with it is not really something that is an
argument for ploneout, I just took the time to implement it in it, it
could be a separate package as well.
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Nope. Windows support for zopectl is a lot harder then just some path
fiddling. But the real issue with it is not really something that is an
argument for ploneout, I just took the time to implement it in it, it
could be
