[Trac-dev] Trac 0.10.4: Command failed: 'CachedRepository' object has no attribute 'compmgr'

Hello. This is on 0.10.4, however, trunk doesn't seem to be so much different. I am trying to rewrite some of my modifications to Trac to be extensions, so that they require fewer changes to the trac source base. However, there aren't always the extension points needed. I am trying to a

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Christopher Lenz wrote: > 1) Too many changes with too much impact Agreed. Hopefully the development policy we discussed earlier on trac- dev in combination with more focus "release early release often" will help us avoid similar problems in the future. > 2) Too many API changes without much b

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Christian, first off, thanks a lot for this great response! Am 10.09.2007 um 16:26 schrieb Christian Boos: > Christopher Lenz wrote: >> 1) Too many changes with too much impact [snip] > The WikiContext related changes seemed to me a good idea at first, > as I > was able to address a few long-s

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Seg, 2007-09-10 às 21:14 +0200, Christopher Lenz escreveu: > I maintain that I don't think that the current codebase is in a > state > that we should be releasing it. This has less to do with whether or > not Trac trunk works okay from the perspective of the user, but a > whole lot more with

[Trac-dev] New ssl cert on svn.edgewall.org

Hi, Yesterday a new certificate was installed on svn.edgewall.org. So it's safe to ignore certificate warnings, at least as long as the following fingerprints match: Fingerprints: SHA1: D2 20 FB CE 5A 13 E4 1E F5 24 EA B1 14 3D FA F2 C1 69 EB 71 MD5: B2 27 D4 F9 44 D4 14 A0 74 E5 74 24 6B 65

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Am 10.09.2007 um 13:31 schrieb Luis Matos: > well ... i am nobody here. I am just helping the packaging of trac and > trac plugins into debian and we reached somekind of crossroad. > > People is ancious for the 0.11 release, because it has, like it was > said, too many new features. Many people is

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

-On [20070910 13:43], Lucas Stephanou ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >A example is i18n branch, initial was planned to 0.11 and after some time >moved to 0.12. Sorry, you are quite mistaken about this I think. From the moment I created the various i18n tickets I have always set the milest

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Seg, 2007-09-10 às 07:10 -0700, osimons escreveu: > So, personally - and from an external developer perspective - I'm -1 > on any 'official' release until some core issues have been sorted out > (even though I have no vote :-). 'Sorted out' could be as easy as the > core developers agreeing to lea

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

On 9/10/07, Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Too many changes with too much impact > trac.context and the flexible permissions system, that have gone in > without ever having been completed on a branch, or without having I feel I have to defend my decision to merge only the Wiki p

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Christopher Lenz wrote: > ... > > So here's my highly subjective analysis on how things went off track > this year. > First, thank you for bringing the discussion on a good fact-based level... makes it easier for me to mostly agree with your analysis. Let's go through some details though,

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

> 5) Not enough communication > The trac-dev mailing list has been extremely quiet. A lot of > discussion is taking place exclusively on IRC and on tickets, and > that means that anyone who doesn't have the bandwidth to follow those > channels (which are both very high traffic, and often with a ba

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, "Lucas Stephanou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you Luis, > I'm using 0.11 trunk in production ( Yes, I'm crazy) but that it quite > stable after all. > > After 1 mount working in production with 0.11 trunk, I think that is very > close of a stable version. > I ag

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

On 9/10/07, Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Too many changes with too much impact > 2) Too many API changes without much benefit > 3) Added bloat > 4) Not enough testing > 5) Not enough communication I have to say I agree with a lot of your points. In the past, I've expressed sim

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Adding a flame ... ... there is always something more to include and something that is not quite right. catching the subject, i18n (internationalization) is very important and mistreated by trac devs for a long time. Even if incomplete, you should include it in 0.12 ... users will thank, even

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

I agree with you Luis, I'm using 0.11 trunk in production ( Yes, I'm crazy) but that it quite stable after all. Chris, I'm not a trac developer, but my experience with others projects , I can say: All that you said is very normal. To resolve this situation I think that someone( are you?) must dire

[Trac-dev] Re: What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Hello there ... well ... i am nobody here. I am just helping the packaging of trac and trac plugins into debian and we reached somekind of crossroad. People is ancious for the 0.11 release, because it has, like it was said, too many new features. Many people is already running 0.11 from trunk.

[Trac-dev] What's gone wrong on the road to Trac 0.11

Hey folks, when I went on my honeymoon in December of last year, I thought we might be able to do the unthinkable and get 0.11 out in spring, only about half a year after 0.10. That optimism was based on the great progress that had already been made at that point. Now it's September, and

[Trac-dev] Re: Dynamic environment reset (#3833)

Am 07.09.2007 um 17:37 schrieb Christopher Lenz: > I've looked into #3833 today, and have attached a patch to the ticket: > > > > > The goal here is to dynamically update when a component