Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Hi Jim, It would be great if the two recent fixes I committed could make it into a 3.9.4 release some time soon... What can I do to help this happen? Assuming I do anything necessary, when could you do this release? (or give Christian permission to do it :-) ) I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the repozo change without an automated test. In the future, please don't check changes directly into trunk or a release branch. Check them into a development branch. I'll review and merge. Jim -- Jim Fulton ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
Jim Fulton wrote: I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the repozo change without an automated test. Are you serious? You'd rather have a broken tool than one that isn't broken on the basis that the existing tests aren't part of the test suite that gets run by default?! In the future, please don't check changes directly into trunk or a release branch. Check them into a development branch. I'll review and merge. Sure, although these are both miniscule changes... I've learned my lesson, I won't try and contribute to ZODB development in future... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the repozo change without an automated test. Are you serious? You'd rather have a broken tool than one that isn't broken on the basis that the existing tests aren't part of the test suite that gets run by default?! Yes. Jim -- Jim Fulton ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
[Jim Fulton] I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the repozo change without an automated test. [Chris Withers]\ Are you serious? You'd rather have a broken tool than one that isn't broken on the basis that the existing tests aren't part of the test suite that gets run by default?! That's what he said -- and you made him repeat it several times by now. In the future, please don't check changes directly into trunk or a release branch. Check them into a development branch. I'll review and merge. Sure, although these are both miniscule changes... I've learned my lesson, I won't try and contribute to ZODB development in future... I think that's the wrong lesson to take. repozo had several fatal bugs when I inherited it, and part of the reason is that there were no tests of any kind. As the checkin comment said when I added testrepozo.py: Better Than Nothing -- which is what we had before. There wasn't time then to finish the job (i.e., to automate the testing and dope out some way to make failure output more /helpful/ than just guts don't match). What I checked in then was essential, though, to verify the slew of bugfixes that went in around the same time. Alas, 5 1/2 years later, repozo testing apparently remains just barely Better Than Nothing, but that's really not good enough for a supported approach. So the right lessons are: (1) to do development on a development branch; and, (2) to finish the job I started if repozo is to be treated as more than just another random piece of flotsam in the ZODB ocean. If nobody is interested in doing that work, fine by me ;-) ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
Tim Peters wrote: That's what he said -- and you made him repeat it several times by now. Yes, I find it hard to believe that someone would deliberately break something that someone else has taken the trouble to fix (and run the tests for!)... I've learned my lesson, I won't try and contribute to ZODB development in future... I think that's the wrong lesson to take. repozo had several fatal bugs when I inherited it, and part of the reason is that there were no tests of any kind. As the checkin comment said when I added testrepozo.py: Better Than Nothing -- which is what we had before. There wasn't time then to finish the job (i.e., to automate the testing and dope out some way to make failure output more /helpful/ than just guts don't match). What I checked in then was essential, though, to verify the slew of bugfixes that went in around the same time. Alas, 5 1/2 years later, repozo testing apparently remains just barely Better Than Nothing, but that's really not good enough for a supported approach. I'm not arguing with the above, and I'm not asking for anything more supported than already exists. However, requiring someone to completely rewrite a test suite for software that they're never needed to understand on the basis that they corrected some imports to make them compatible with a newer version of python seems unreasonable. So the right lessons are: (1) to do development on a development branch; Where is the development process that requires this documented? and, (2) to finish the job I started if repozo is to be treated as more than just another random piece of flotsam in the ZODB ocean. I'm fine with the status quo... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Hi Jim, It would be great if the two recent fixes I committed could make it into a 3.9.4 release some time soon... What can I do to help this happen? Assuming I do anything necessary, when could you do this release? (or give Christian permission to do it :-) ) I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the repozo change without an automated test. - -sys.maxint. In what possible universe are we better off not being able to run repozo under Python 2.6? That fix is trivial to inspect for correctness, changes no behavior, and is like dozens of other Python 2.6 compatiblitity changes made in our codebase. Repozo is *the* documented way of backing up filestorages: with Zope 2.12 and later now running on Python 2.6, we should just tell people Sorry, you can't do backups? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAksGw0cACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4uHwCgrxg3tCLKKJahyRCgE70AgW1Z wt8An01/eLljzLCtcSDlVd5vfe8jgAhl =DVF7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk
wrote:
Hi Jim,
It would be great if the two recent fixes I committed could make it into a
3.9.4 release some time soon...
What can I do to help this happen?
Assuming I do anything necessary, when could you do this release?
(or give Christian permission to do it :-) )
I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the
repozo change without an automated test.
-sys.maxint. In what possible universe are we better off not being able
to run repozo under Python 2.6? That fix is trivial to inspect for
correctness, changes no behavior, and is like dozens of other Python 2.6
compatiblitity changes made in our codebase.
Repozo is *the* documented way of backing up filestorages: with Zope
2.12 and later now running on Python 2.6, we should just tell people
Sorry, you can't do backups?
I just checked in a stupid test to ensure that repozo can be imported.
- --- src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (revision 105913)
+++ src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (working copy)
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
(re.compile('hash=[0-9a-f]{40}'),
'hash=b16422d09fabdb45d4e4325e4b42d7d6f021d3c3')])
+class RepozoTests(unittest.TestCase):
+
+def test_importability(self):
+from ZODB.scripts import repozo
+
def test_suite():
return unittest.TestSuite((
doctest.DocFileSuite(
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksGyKkACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5NDACfXI8srJ2V1K/g3iwB8OOtv4Qb
/8kAoJ6ELmc1vQzePnh4/w71Xw/TJy8O
=6+vL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk
wrote:
Hi Jim,
It would be great if the two recent fixes I committed could make it into a
3.9.4 release some time soon...
What can I do to help this happen?
Assuming I do anything necessary, when could you do this release?
(or give Christian permission to do it :-) )
I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the
repozo change without an automated test.
-sys.maxint. In what possible universe are we better off not being able
to run repozo under Python 2.6?
You can run repozo under Python 2.6 now. You'll get a deprecation warning.
That fix is trivial to inspect for
correctness, changes no behavior, and is like dozens of other Python 2.6
compatiblitity changes made in our codebase.
Repozo is *the* documented way of backing up filestorages:
Where is that?
with Zope
2.12 and later now running on Python 2.6, we should just tell people
Sorry, you can't do backups?
No, we should tell them they should use a mostly untested tool to do backups
that doesn't work with blobs. That should inspire confidence.
Does Zope 2.12 use Blobs?
I just checked in a stupid test to ensure that repozo can be imported.
- --- src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (revision 105913)
+++ src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (working copy)
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
(re.compile('hash=[0-9a-f]{40}'),
'hash=b16422d09fabdb45d4e4325e4b42d7d6f021d3c3')])
+class RepozoTests(unittest.TestCase):
+
+ def test_importability(self):
+ from ZODB.scripts import repozo
+
I appreciate your dedication to quality.
That test passes under ZODB 3.9.3 with Python 2.6.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
Jim Fulton wrote: +class RepozoTests(unittest.TestCase): + +def test_importability(self): +from ZODB.scripts import repozo + I appreciate your dedication to quality. That test passes under ZODB 3.9.3 with Python 2.6. ...but it will emit a deprecation warning, which I thought we considered to be a test failure? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk
wrote:
Hi Jim,
It would be great if the two recent fixes I committed could make it into a
3.9.4 release some time soon...
What can I do to help this happen?
Assuming I do anything necessary, when could you do this release?
(or give Christian permission to do it :-) )
I need to review the changes before the release. I'll probably reject the
repozo change without an automated test.
-sys.maxint. In what possible universe are we better off not being able
to run repozo under Python 2.6?
You can run repozo under Python 2.6 now. You'll get a deprecation warning.
So we have an annoyance rather than a catastrophe: that helps some. It
will still break on 2.7 without the trivial fix.
That fix is trivial to inspect for
correctness, changes no behavior, and is like dozens of other Python 2.6
compatiblitity changes made in our codebase.
Repozo is *the* documented way of backing up filestorages:
Where is that?
http://wiki.zope.org/ZODB/FileStorageBackup
with Zope
2.12 and later now running on Python 2.6, we should just tell people
Sorry, you can't do backups?
No, we should tell them they should use a mostly untested tool to do backups
that doesn't work with blobs. That should inspire confidence.
We can use rsync to back up blobs safely / losslessly without restarting
the ZEO server: we can't do that with filestorages.
Does Zope 2.12 use Blobs?
If configured, sure.
I just checked in a stupid test to ensure that repozo can be imported.
- --- src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (revision 105913)
+++ src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (working copy)
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
(re.compile('hash=[0-9a-f]{40}'),
'hash=b16422d09fabdb45d4e4325e4b42d7d6f021d3c3')])
+class RepozoTests(unittest.TestCase):
+
+def test_importability(self):
+from ZODB.scripts import repozo
+
I appreciate your dedication to quality.
That test passes under ZODB 3.9.3 with Python 2.6.
It emits the same DeprecationWarning (the bug Withers fixed). I did
have to munge the 'test_suite' dinosaur as well.
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAksG4bIACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ7czQCgzAjQX0TUEJKSNo92+uv8UWOw
VmEAoJ9Xo7WRamCQyuwmY7Kacrqk/Krz
=/5ad
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
...
with Zope
2.12 and later now running on Python 2.6, we should just tell people
Sorry, you can't do backups?
No, we should tell them they should use a mostly untested tool to do backups
that doesn't work with blobs. That should inspire confidence.
We can use rsync to back up blobs safely / losslessly without restarting
the ZEO server: we can't do that with filestorages.
Depending on backup schedules, I would not rely on the rsync backed
up blobs and repozo backups remaining consistent. Packing complicates
this quite a bit.
Does Zope 2.12 use Blobs?
If configured, sure.
I would not trust repozo + blob backups.
I just checked in a stupid test to ensure that repozo can be imported.
- --- src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (revision 105913)
+++ src/ZODB/scripts/tests.py (working copy)
@@ -26,6 +26,11 @@
(re.compile('hash=[0-9a-f]{40}'),
'hash=b16422d09fabdb45d4e4325e4b42d7d6f021d3c3')])
+class RepozoTests(unittest.TestCase):
+
+ def test_importability(self):
+ from ZODB.scripts import repozo
+
I appreciate your dedication to quality.
That test passes under ZODB 3.9.3 with Python 2.6.
It emits the same DeprecationWarning (the bug Withers fixed). I did
have to munge the 'test_suite' dinosaur as well.
Fair enough. Given that this provokes the symptom that was fixed.
I can live with this.
I also would fear to rely on repozo in it's current state, but I don't have to.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
___
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: If configured, sure. I would not trust repozo + blob backups. I don't trust Blobs. A year ago, I reverted all of the code I had for our CMS that supported Blobs as it was impossible to copy their data in a basic Zope 3 copy/past/move. I think that may have been fixed, but since there's practically zero documentation on how to use blobs, use them wisely, use them well, and use them in fairly plain Zope 3-ish applications, I lost confidence. Fair enough. Given that this provokes the symptom that was fixed. I can live with this. I also would fear to rely on repozo in it's current state, but I don't have to. We live in fear of most of the tools in their current state. So they pass the tests - whoopee! But the documentation is so bare and minimal that we (Bottlerocket) still don't properly configure anything. I guessed at some default values and those get copied around, hoping for the best. We've encountered problems with ZEO in the long-ago past that I'm sure were due to configuration misunderstandings that still hold over us to this day. We use ZEO, but I don't think we use it well. Last time I looked for documentation, many of the documents seemed either from the early Zope 2 era or came from the Plone community. While thankful for some of the documents from the Plone community, we're not a Plone shop, nor a Zope 2 shop any more (except for a couple of customers). Some of the tools they reference are unavailable to us. I still don't know what the data from zc.monitor means or how we can use that to adjust ZEO / ZODB configuration settings to improve performance of a site. So while the tests can make us all confident that the ZODB/ZEO system works, how about some documentation coverage that could help us be confident that we're using it correctly? For what it's worth, I rely on but also somewhat fear repozo - not because of its tests or lack thereof (it seems to work for me!), but because documentation and help for the scripts are lacking (fortunately, 'repozo' is the one exception. 'fsrefs' and 'fsdump' are mysterious. There's a lot of other tools in ZODB.scripts that seem rather antiquated, or intimately tied to Zope 2. But chances are that no one even knows those tools are there). Thanks, Jeff Shell j...@bottlerocket.net ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] 3.9.4 release?
On 11/20/2009 08:07 PM, Jeff Shell wrote: On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: If configured, sure. I would not trust repozo + blob backups. I don't trust Blobs. A year ago, I reverted all of the code I had for our CMS that supported Blobs as it was impossible to copy their data in a basic Zope 3 copy/past/move. I think that may have been fixed, but since there's practically zero documentation on how to use blobs, use them wisely, use them well, and use them in fairly plain Zope 3-ish applications, I lost confidence. I think I just found a way to fix this particular issue on the ZODB-level for good. I re-opened https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/zodb/+bug/240381 and assigned it to myself. I'll see if I can do something over the weekend. Christian -- 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 ___ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
