Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Hopefully. Do we know that zc.relationship 1.1 works with both ZODB
versions?
That would be a significant point of its existence, so I certainly
hope so. I'm 80%+ confident that it does, and would regard not
supporting 3.7 as a bug that I'd
Gary Poster wrote:
Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that
this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency.
Cool. Committed.
If we do that, then we can let plone.relations depend on
zc.relationship
1.1.1 explicitly and have support for both ZODB versions,
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2009-3-15 11:10 +0100:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
The Zope 2.12 documention tells that the test command was removed
from zopectl.
test was a convenient way to test products and packages in the
context of the instance. How is this use case now
Andreas Jung wrote:
As mentioned earlier: use buildout. easy_install support has no high
priority right now.
Whilst I understand that we don't have the capacity to test all
different configurations now, I think it's a good principle to try to
avoid a 'hard' dependency on zc.buildout. If we
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 12 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm writing a custom file widget for z3c.form that works like the
Archetypes file widget that Plone uses and the formlib widget in
collective.namedfile. That is, after you've uploaded a file once, you're
given a radio
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 12 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Could I maybe create a custom validator that checks for a magic
constant? If so, how? I have both a custom field (in the zope.schema
sense) and a custom widget.
Yeah. I could swear I implemented this before. A validator
Laurent Mignon wrote:
Hi,
2 weeks ago, I've implemented a support for nested group into the
branch svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/z3c.form/branches/sagblmi-nestedgroup
All test pass and no compatibility issue.
Can I merge it to the trunk?
What's the use case for this?
Martin
--
Hi,
Sorry for doing this by email rather than unit test, but I'm a bit
over-stretched at the moment.
plone.z3cform has a backport of z3c.form trunk's TextLines widget
(when's that release coming, any ideas?).
In using it, I discovered that the converter (converter.py on z3c.form
trunk) does
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for doing this by email rather than unit test, but I'm a bit
over-stretched at the moment.
plone.z3cform has a backport of z3c.form trunk's TextLines widget
(when's that release coming, any ideas?).
In using it, I discovered that the converter
Paul Everitt wrote:
When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm talking about a group of people who act as if they're responsible,
not your mythical committee. We should be able to find a bunch of people
with a sense of responsibility, right?
Yes. But I don't think making them a steering group is going to help.
Just to take
Martijn Pieters wrote:
Would it be possible to focus this discussion around clearer lines?
Create counter proposals if you have to, discuss things on their
merits, but if you cannot add more than a vague +1 and -1, please
refrain.
I think that would be easier if we had a shorter proposal. I
Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, the you above in you scolded was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the scolding had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
from this point on, any package shared between repoze.bfg
Tres Seaver wrote:
Different participants will report differently about the success, no
doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
decisions taken at the PSPS as advisory, just talk, etc: having
no force in governing the more tactical decisions.
I don't know why this
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Okay, I guess we do differ here. I think a leader can provide
encouragement and stimulate people into action, point out interesting
outstanding tasks, and make sure that people who are motivated actually
get grip on improving the project and don't get discouraged. Of
Tres Seaver wrote:
- - The branch kills off both the use of 'zope.deferredimport' and the
'bbb' subpackage, leaving something which could be used in Jython, or
IronPython, or the GAE.
Why is zope.deferredimport a problem? Does it do something CPython
specific? As a small utility, I don't
Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm pretty sure a steering group and a rebranding of existing software is not
going to make us more effective. Here's what I believe would make us more
effective:
First of all, I'm not sure what Martijn is saying is necessarily in
dichotomy with what you're saying, so
Tres Seaver wrote:
It is a nightmare, but not one which a KGS can really fix: sometimes
your project needs its *own* KGS. Honestly, the only safe thing for
anybody trying to support a large application in production is to run
their own index, and do the gatekeeping of packages into it
Martijn Faassen wrote:
What is going to make us more effective is:
* a recognition of current reality, i.e. the Zope Framework is not the
same as the Zope 3 application server and it serves a far wider audience.
* leadership
I really couldn't agree more. There's unfortunately a bit of a
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 02 March 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Plone, by the way, had a similar problem, and solved it by creating the
framework team. This is a rolling body of people who are responsible
for putting out calls for and reviewing improvements proposals. They
basically
Chris McDonough wrote:
Sure. We can be careful, grown-up, conservative, and all that. But I'll note
that a) there just really aren't that many people using Zope 3 b) the people
that *are* using Zope 3 by itself are capable of maintaining their own index
c)
the people who *aren't* capable
Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I just realized the irony in this:
[Martijn spends a lot of time in trying to solve problems in our
community, bothering to consult lots of people and writing up a document]
[Chris]
I'm pretty sure a steering group and a rebranding
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
Yes, you can just use Paste Deploy
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
WSGI with other server concepts.
WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 05:14, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
The new.zope.org initiative died because no-one could write any content.
Even then 5-10 pages of content requires for a very basic microsite was
too much, and several separate calls
Andreas Jung wrote:
I just checked new.zope.org and I think that your idea appears
reasonable. The only thing I dislike about the new.zope.org design is
the navigation tree at the bottom of the page. All other parts of the
design could be re-used directly - perhaps with some slightly
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:14, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Please go make this happen if you can. It's very important. I can't anymore.
As far as I can see, it's a question of
- setting up a server, I would recommend a Plone site with the new Zope
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 21, 2009, at 08:55 , Andreas Jung wrote:
- - are there any legal issues with the design layout in case we
want to
make modifications? I know that the designer of new.zope.org theme
made some trouble when it
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:59, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
We
Yes. But not *I*. And you asked if *I* could get it done. :) Perhaps
you meant if I could nag people into doing it. I doubt that I could.
I'm not good at making people do things for free
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:14, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Please go make this happen if you can. It's very important. I can't anymore.
As far as I can see, it's a question of
- setting up a server, I would recommend a Plone site with the new Zope
Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
because of the failure of the new.zope.org project I would like to put
the hat on for reorganizing the Zope 2 presentation on zope.org.
Is this failure official or is there just no action on this?
Let's say both.
I basically gave up trying to get
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20.02.2009 15:23 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I really hope someone provides the resources to create a microsite
instead of the Zope 3 approach on wiki.zope.org. Grok is doing two
things: a Plone-based site where people
Laurent Mignon wrote:
Hi,
With the replacement of zope.app.component import with zope.site, it's
no more possible to use z3c.form with Zope2 / Plone :-(
In fact, zope.site require zope.container requiring ZODB3 :-(
Why can't you put these eggs into your Plone buildout? Are there version
Hi Martijn,
Without comparison otherwise, you may find my thoughts here useful:
http://www.martinaspeli.net/articles/granting-plone-an-api
a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in
zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to
declare ZCML
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Christian Theune wrote at 2009-1-16 09:06 +0100:
I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
IMHO, it is not an
Christian Theune wrote:
I noticed 'zope.globalrequest' on the PyPI RSS feed today and wonder
about it. IMHO this implements an anti-pattern in an official way
without a warning that this needs to be handled with care.
First of all, I actually quite like this pattern. It's commonly used in
Benji York wrote:
And what about zope.agxassociation, zope.bforest, zope.bobo,
zope.generic, zope.ucol, zope.wfmc and zope.xmlpickle to name a few of
the more than 30 packages already in the zope.* namespace which are
neither part of any Zope release nor are likely to ever be?
Some of
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Log message for revision 94498:
Restore Products.Five.security.initializeClass.
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/Five/security.py
-=-
Modified:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have just checked in work on a separate branch which removes all use
of 'Globals' as an indirection for imports within the Zope2 core,
restoring the module to its original purpose, which was to hold shared
data (e.g., the
All,
Yuppie asked a good question on zope-cmf today: Why doesn't Five support
the adapter / directive's 'permission' attribute? Or does it?
The underlying discussion is that CMF trunk has a traversal namespace
adapter for add forms, that looks up the actual view to render as a
named adapter
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
As an aside / vent: the reason for the now-removed EXTERNALS.txt files
was to keep the canonical information about the externals in a diffable
file: why subversion can't do a proper diff on its own
Hi,
Is there any indication on when we'll see a 2.0 release of z3c.form?
We need a widget that's not in the 1.9 release, but is on trunk (for a
list with textline value type), and are wondering whether to roll our
own or wait for a new z3c.form release.
Martin
--
Author of `Professional
Hi Tres,
Index Name |Type |Avg Time |Calls/second
==
object_implements|KeywordIndex |0.2172234| 4.6
This is clearly not the same issue as the other KeywordIndexes: in
fact, I am astonished
Hedley Roos wrote:
As for standard queries on a Plone site the typical folder contents
query is a good example. The query will be fast unless it sorts on
sortable_title (a ZCTextIndex) right? Not sure right now.
sortable_title is a field index and shouldn't be slower than any other
index.
Hi David,
David Pratt wrote:
I am feeling increasing pressure and frustration to re-examine what I am
doing. Zope has a wonderful code base but it is spread through many
packages in the form of dependencies. As a result, a small app in a
working z3 setup can start off at almost 50MB while
Jim Fulton wrote:
Some people who use zope.interface reply on being able to singly adapt
tuples
I've heard this before, but I've always been curious: why? when is this
a pattern you'd want to use?
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to
Hi Roger,
Btw., it is possible to have a three-state widget for
booleans, such as a drop-down widget, that includes
True/False/None, although it may not make much sense.
No that's not possible! Because you can't save anything
then False or True in a Bool field.
Really? How is this
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:48PM -0700, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 27 August 2008, Martin Aspeli wrote:
This means that if the request contains the empty-marker only (no
selection was made) for a checkbox widget (say), then the return value
is [], rather than
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Donnerstag 28 August 2008 10:14:11 schrieb Martin Aspeli:
Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:48PM -0700, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 27 August 2008, Martin Aspeli wrote:
This means that if the request contains the empty-marker only
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 28 August 2008, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I suspect that we just need widget.SequenceWidget in z3c.form to have a
special case for len(self.terms)==1, i.e. it's a checkbox with only one
option, or maybe a special case for a BooleanField, or indeed have
different
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Donnerstag 28 August 2008 02:35:28 schrieb Marius Gedminas:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:48PM -0700, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 27 August 2008, Martin Aspeli wrote:
This means that if the request contains the empty-marker only (no
selection was made
Hi,
In z3c.form.widget.SequenceWidget, we have:
def extract(self, default=interfaces.NOVALUE):
See z3c.form.interfaces.IWidget.
if (self.name not in self.request and
self.name+'-empty-marker' in self.request):
return []
value =
Hi,
I'm trying to build a widget that allows for auto-complete of items in a
vocabulary, but also allows additional (string) values to be added. To
understand how that works, I am digging into z3c.formwidget.query, and
it looks to me like it's making incorrect assumptions about its own
Malthe Borch wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm trying to build a widget that allows for auto-complete of items in a
vocabulary, but also allows additional (string) values to be added. To
understand how that works, I am digging into z3c.formwidget.query, and
it looks to me like it's making
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Looks like a bug to me. If the object passed as the first argument to
queryAdapter() implements the interface passed as the second argument, I
believe queryAdapter() should return the object, regardless of any
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
But yes, that sounds like a great idea. Feel free to do it ;). I
probably won't have time to worry about this any time soon. I'm just
trying to fix an issue at hand.
Thanks a lot for doing that, by the way. :)
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have an interesting problem in the world of Zope 2 and zcml: CMFCore
registers an handleDynamicTypeCopiedEvent subscriber which does
something that I want to prevent at all costs, so I am trying to make
sure it is not subscriber. That appears to be impossible!
I can
Hi Christian,
So, I'm wondering:
- Is it harmful to have two fields with the same order like this when
they share a name?
Sharing a name sounds weird. The attribute get's overriden and the
field from the base class isn't considered anymore.
Right, that's what I meant. Except that if
Fred Drake wrote:
On Jul 21, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Since this is prelease software, it's probably ok to talk about issues
with it. You could file a bug next time. However, AFAIK, Zope hasn't
even been ported to 2.5.
Many people are using Zope 3 with Python 2.5 without
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Okay, so we can safely add Chris (and also Philipp) to the list of
people maintaining our windows binary eggs. Awesome! Chris, do you
think you can take it from here in getting an environment set up?
Would be rgeat to have a bullet point list for
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2008, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Chris wants to do them, he just wants some documentation on how to get
started, I suspect.
I use Philipp's blog entry from ages ago:
Mark Hammond wrote:
Well, Zope moved onwards from PAS to PAU and I think Plone should too,
because:
It seems like just yesterday that PAS offered the promise of being the nice
clean way forward for authentication, and even offered a path to Zope3.
I've been subscribed to zope-dev since then,
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I call BS here. PAS is not a custom solution, it's much more of a
standard than PAU is.
The question remains, why?. You're reinventing wheels for Zope 2
that do not need to be reinvented. One day when PAU has indeed
surpassed PAS in terms of functionality and
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
may or may become a part of Zope and/or Plone in the future. Well
put Martin. ;)
Hah, obviously I meant may or may not. :)
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Mark Hammond wrote:
I think you've misunderstood slightly here ... PAS was and is a Zope 2
user folder implementation. It pre-dates Zope 3 (at least as we know it
now).
I was referring to the thread at
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-pas/2004-September/86.html, entitled
[Zope-PAS]
Benji York wrote:
I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in
parallelized subprocesses.
I have some recent experience parallelising (and distributing across
machines) test runs. This was in Java, with TestNG and Selenium, but we
learned some interesting things. We
Hi all,
The zope.org redux project has slowed down too much lately. I think we
are dangerously close to something that's sufficient to go live and
would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs. We just
need the last push. In order to do that, we need a little bit of a help
To get the ball rolling...
To move this forward, please:
- Volunteer for a section or page by editing the wiki and/or just
posting here.
I volunteer to do the home page.
I've updated http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/site-map
- Ask me for a username on new.zope.org if you
Chris Withers wrote:
Hey All,
I'm trying to run a plone-ish buildout on Windows for a customer,
currently getting this:
creating zope.proxy
copying zope/proxy\proxy.h - zope.proxy
error: Python was built with Visual Studio 2003;
extensions must be built with a compiler than can generate
Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:40:24PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
In some earlier discussions a number of approaches to integrate SQLAlchemy
into Zope were discussed. Following up on that, I've tried a particular
approach that tries to use ScopedSessions with
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
For some reason this raises a warning bell in my head. I keep on
thinking: this is zope, the session is a classic case for a utility, we
should be getting it in views by an interface.
FWIW, I had the same though.
I
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Brian Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
For some reason this raises a warning bell in my head. I keep on
thinking: this is zope, the session is a classic case for a utility, we
should be getting it in views
Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 13:10 +0200, Christian Theune wrote:
That's exactly the behaviour I was afraid of.
I propose to keep it around for a few more days to see how it stabilizes. If
it jerks again, I'll switch off notifications until I get a change done that
avoids this
How many of these do we need? zope-dev is almost unreadable at the
moment due to the number of buildout failure emails.
Martin
--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I'm on the fence on this one. I think as long as the site *says* it's
affiliated with the Zope project, the Zope community and the
foundation, we're fine. You can argue both directions here: we might
Hi Paul,
I guess I have officially volunteered to write content for the new
zope.org site in the zope 3 section. Part of that involves describing
what zope 3 is in a concise manner. I realize there are probably a
lot of different opinions about what zope 3 is, so I would like to
solicit the
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Christophe Combelles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So let's just build a first nice zope.org with subfolders explaining the
different projects because it's important to have just *something*. At
least.
Sure, that's fine. But that's just
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Martins answer doens't seem to have arrived here, so sorry for the
weird quoting:
On 21 Apr 2008, at 11:53 , Martin Aspeli wrote:
Does it really matter whether a microsite lives in
zope.org/projects/zodb or zodb.zope.org?
As mentioned, no.But it's important
Martijn Faassen wrote:
You Can Save Buildout!
So, who is up to make a nice clean looking website and a few tutorials
for buildout? It needs a website. Buildout has been around for a few
years without a proper website already, Paver for 5 minutes and it's got
one. I'm not going to do it, but
Maerteijn wrote:
I'm thinking about volunteering for the zope2 section, but I already can say
that I'm not an expert on all facets of zope2. However, helping out is the
main concern now so something is better than nothing.
Absolutely. I don't think you need to be an expert to do a good job. In
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Merging it into Zope trunk will get it into the Zope 2.12 release
which is at this point not scheduled yet, but is unlikely to get a
release before early 2009. This should give us plenty of time to test.
This
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*IF* you'd like to be pragmatic, I'd suggest we clean up those failing
Plone tests, merge the branch and be on our way. Yes, we *might* be
plastering over a potential problem in the patch, but the other
tests didn't seem to be affected and intensive alpha
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection parameters in ZCML and that
Andreas Jung lists at zopyx.com writes:
The way I use collective.lead in my book is to have it look up the
database settings in a local utility. That utility is editable via a
control panel page in Plone. I suspect that it'd be quite easy to do
something similar where the settings were
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Technically, I think that this is going to be hard. You'd need to patch
in the magic acquisition base class. Acquisition is the main reason that
some of the code needed to be duplicated - without the existence of
acquisition wrappers, security checks are not made for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
[I originally picked this up on a thread on zope3-users, but this
deserves its own thread here]
There are at least three approaches to SQLAlchemy integration with Zope:
* z3c.zalchemy (Christian Theune)
* z3c.sqlalchemy (Andreas Jung)
* collective.lead
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Should one phase commit be set as the default to make it easier to work
with sqlite (and mssql)? Probably yes.
Ideally we'd guess based on the URL scheme but allow it to be set
explicitly, IMHO. Single phase would be the fallback, I guess.
Should the default be for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are in various states of brokenness. z3c.zalchemy doesn't work
with SQLAlchemy trunk. collective.lead works with it, but only if you check
out a particular
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for it to be included as a
sqlalchemy extension module.
I would be happy with
Chris Withers wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Yes. That's the point. It's vanilla Plone (well, one custom content type
for the feature that fronts each section, but it's trivial) with a
simple skin, not the FrankePlone that runs the old site. As a case in
point, Wichert upgraded it from 3.0
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Yeah, I know this is really a me too post, but I think we should err
on the side of conventional for our website. We can't go from
out-of-date boring to cutting edge hip in one giant leap; it won't be
believable. Let's stick with what people know
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:52:07 -0700, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now we need people to help contribute content, review the content that's
already there and tie up a few loose ends.
You can see current state of play here: http://zode01.lovelysystems.com
Hi all,
The rumours are true. :) An effort has been going on for a while to
improve the zope.org experience and thereby help make Zope more
accessible to new users.
I've helped co-ordinate it, but the project has been sanctioned by the
Zope Foundation and driven by people like Martijn,
Paul Carduner wrote:
I'm wondering where the Documentation section is? I'd like to
volunteer for *that* section. By the way, the design looks pretty
nice.
There's one (called Learn) for each project, i.e. zope 2, zope 3, cmf,
zodb.
Which one would you like to contribute to?
Martin
--
Paul Carduner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Carduner wrote:
I'm wondering where the Documentation section is? I'd like to
volunteer for *that* section. By the way, the design looks pretty
nice.
There's one (called Learn) for each
Paul Carduner wrote:
On Apr 5, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no content that isn't visible to anonymous on the site.
Basically, we originally thought we would have one
documentation/learn section for all Zope technologies. However, it
seemed to make more
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:
Look at Sphinx for providing brilliant access to ReST doc.
http://sphinx.pocoo.org/
I think looking at Sphinx is definitely a worthwhile effort. That said,
I agree with Martin that we shouldn't let the new website effort be held
up by (or distracted
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm not sure this is all that useful. For Plone 4, we're just going to
have a number of plone.*, plone.app.* and Products.* (and a few others,
like kss.*) eggs that we can put in a KGS or version pin
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
during the latest 'zope.publisher' thread on zope-dev I came up with
the proposal to eggify the Zope core for the Zope 2.12 release. I would
like to start a discussion about the pros and cons, risks and advantages
of any eggification
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an application use case without
a zodb. Is this the scenario that the basic publisher would
facilitate?
No-more so than the
301 - 400 of 482 matches
Mail list logo
