On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:07:06PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Marius Gedminas
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:41:11PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marius Ge
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:07:06PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:41:11PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> >> In 3.9 for FileStorage, if you give a starting t
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:41:11PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> In 3.9 for FileStorage, if you give a starting tid that is toward the
>> end of the file,
>> it will scan backward,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:41:11PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> ...
> > Well, there is IStorage, and I think all storages (except for
> > FileStorage) implemented it faithfully
>
> I guess that depends on what you mean by faithfully. Mappin
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
...
> Well, there is IStorage, and I think all storages (except for
> FileStorage) implemented it faithfully
I guess that depends on what you mean by faithfully. MappingStorage
and Demostorage
in 3.8 inherited a null implementation from Bas
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:08:36AM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 01:04:03PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > (Supporting both ZODB 3.8 and 3.9 is k
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 01:04:03PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> ...
>> > (Supporting both ZODB 3.8 and 3.9 is kinda tricky, but with some very
>> > ugly hacks I managed.)
>>
>> This
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:08:25AM +, Chris Withers wrote:
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > * In ZODB 3.8, the 'version' argument of ClientStorage.history (as well
> > as other kinds of storages, I suppose) is mandatory. In ZODB 3.9
> > it's gone.
> >
> > Solved by peeking into the
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> * In ZODB 3.8, the 'version' argument of ClientStorage.history (as well
> as other kinds of storages, I suppose) is mandatory. In ZODB 3.9
> it's gone.
>
> Solved by peeking into the method signature with inspect.getargspec()
> and supplying a version on
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 01:04:03PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> ...
> > (Supporting both ZODB 3.8 and 3.9 is kinda tricky, but with some very
> > ugly hacks I managed.)
>
> This sounds like something that needs to be fixed. Can you share som
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
...
> (Supporting both ZODB 3.8 and 3.9 is kinda tricky, but with some very
> ugly hacks I managed.)
This sounds like something that needs to be fixed. Can you share some of the
issues you ran into? (Or maybe file bugs reports.)
In particul
On Apr 12, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 14:43 +0200:
>> ...
>> ZODB 3.9 removed a bunch of deprecated API's. Look at
>> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ZODB3/3.9.0a12#change-history to see how
>> much changed in this version.
>>
>> The main things were
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-4-11 14:43 +0200:
> ...
>ZODB 3.9 removed a bunch of deprecated API's. Look at
>http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ZODB3/3.9.0a12#change-history to see how
>much changed in this version.
>
>The main things were related to "Versions are no-longer supported."
>which changed s
Here's an update. I finally got around to installing the free MS
express compiler so I can build on Windows with Python 2.6. The ZODB
tests run on my 32-bit VM, so that's encouraging. (People had reported
the tests "crashing", which I assumed meant that the tests didn't even
run.) I'm ge
Chris Withers wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Just be aware that ZODB 3.9 is not compatible with any stable Zope 2.x
>> release. It only works and is required for Zope 2.12. It can be made to
>> work with prior versions of Zope2 but that is a mild pain.
>
> What are the problems with using ZO
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Just be aware that ZODB 3.9 is not compatible with any stable Zope 2.x
> release. It only works and is required for Zope 2.12. It can be made to
> work with prior versions of Zope2 but that is a mild pain.
What are the problems with using ZODB 3.9 in Zope <2.12?
Chris
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Alan Runyan wrote:
>> That would be great. If we're talking Python 2.6, it might be best
>> to
>> wait until someone gets the tests passing first.
>
> Ok.
>
> I believe it would look like (only on Windows):
>
> Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 on 32bit
> Python 2.6 on 64bit
>
> That would be great. If we're talking Python 2.6, it might be best to
> wait until someone gets the tests passing first.
Ok.
I believe it would look like (only on Windows):
Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 on 32bit
Python 2.6 on 64bit
FWIW: Python 2.6.1 < there is a .dll loading regression for Windows.
On Apr 7, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Alan Runyan wrote:
> The tests were from ZODB trunk + Python 2.6 64bit on Windows.
>
> We could setup buildbot's for ZODB on Windows.
That would be great. If we're talking Python 2.6, it might be best to
wait until someone gets the tests passing first.
> One prob
The tests were from ZODB trunk + Python 2.6 64bit on Windows.
We could setup buildbot's for ZODB on Windows. One problem is..
it takes ages for it the tests to run; so it would need to be on its
own VM.
I think we could run the tests nightly.. where would you want the output?
cheers
alan
p.s.
Alan Runyan wrote:
> Is a ZODB 3.9 beta around the corner?
Just be aware that ZODB 3.9 is not compatible with any stable Zope 2.x
release. It only works and is required for Zope 2.12. It can be made to
work with prior versions of Zope2 but that is a mild pain.
Hanno
_
On Apr 7, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Alan Runyan wrote:
>>> I was just reviewing what is pending for ZODB 3.9.
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/zodb/3.9/+bugs
>>>
>>> Looks like all of the bugs listed for 3.9 are fixed or fixes are
>>> known
>>> and pending.
>>> Is a ZODB 3.9 beta around the corner?
>>>
>
On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Alan Runyan wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I was just reviewing what is pending for ZODB 3.9.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/zodb/3.9/+bugs
>
> Looks like all of the bugs listed for 3.9 are fixed or fixes are known
> and pending.
> Is a ZODB 3.9 beta around the corner?
Yes, for some
>> I was just reviewing what is pending for ZODB 3.9.
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/zodb/3.9/+bugs
>>
>> Looks like all of the bugs listed for 3.9 are fixed or fixes are known
>> and pending.
>> Is a ZODB 3.9 beta around the corner?
>>
>> According to changes.txt the first alpha of 3.9 was cut almo
Hi.
I was just reviewing what is pending for ZODB 3.9.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/zodb/3.9/+bugs
Looks like all of the bugs listed for 3.9 are fixed or fixes are known
and pending.
Is a ZODB 3.9 beta around the corner?
According to changes.txt the first alpha of 3.9 was cut almost 1/2 year ago
25 matches
Mail list logo
