Hello,
Now we have some problems making the binary eggs.
See the attached txt for the full output.
On 08/26/2012 09:07 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/26/2012 07:05 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tres Seaver
Hi - I've been looking at zope.generations
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.generations) - Generations are a way
of updating objects in the database when the application schema
changes.
My interest is for a standalone ZODB database. The example given on that
page seems to presume that
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Adam GROSZER agroszer...@gmail.com wrote:
Now we have some problems making the binary eggs.
See the attached txt for the full output.
I think I fixed that on SVN trunk.
Looks like on Windows the compiler complains about mismatches between
module names and the
Hi,
We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release.
NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but
with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be
distributed over several machines, and by removing database-level
locking), with failure resilience (by mirroring
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier vinc...@nexedi.com wrote:
Hi,
We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release.
NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but
with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be
distributed over several
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Richard Shea rs...@thecubagroup.com wrote:
Hi - I've been looking at zope.generations
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zope.generations) - Generations are a way
of updating objects in the database when the application schema
changes.
My interest is for a
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I think that was the attempt to convert a too-big number to a C 'long
long'. I have adjusted the test to use 2**63 - 1 directly.
Yep, tests pass here now.
I will make
a 4.0.2 release after to buildbots report success
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/2012 09:55 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com
wrote:
I think that was the attempt to convert a too-big number to a C
'long long'. I have adjusted the test to use 2**63 - 1
