Hi,
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:52 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 08:42, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:35 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
somebody to bug people about bugs in
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
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:13, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
For some reason the argument evades me: People randomly doing stuff will
end in good things. People (trying) to thoughtfully organize won't.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.
No. The steering group should not
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
gaps we had to plug.
Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
process and as few officialisms as possible. And I don't
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-include package=zope.file/
I believe people still use the ZCML slug files like the above.
They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
allow for something like 'sites-available' / 'sites-enabled' (the
pattern in a stock
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-include package=zope.file/
I believe people still use the ZCML slug files like the above.
They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
allow for
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:11:59 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The Zope Framework project
==
:Author: Martijn Faassen
:Date: 2009-03-02
Introduction
This document offers suggestions to reorganize our community so we can
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The main innovations in concepts are the name Zope Framework to
distinguish it from the Zope 3 application server and the
core/extra concept. These are all hopefully descriptions of what
are current practices, simply making them more explicit.
From what I read we do
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:49:43 schrieb Adam GROSZER:
Hello,
I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
Exactly. And if we look at other
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Mar 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Mar 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Mar 2 20:25:23 EST 2009
URL:
Am Montag 02 März 2009 19:34:11 schrieb Tres Seaver:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
Yes sometimes
Hi
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
[...]
Grok and Repoze are in part *workarounds* for the
deficiencies in this
community. For Grok I'm very sure it's a workaround, as I had quite
something to do with it and this was explicit in my mind. It's not
*only* a
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:53, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
My impression (from an external perspective) is that Zope Corporation did just
that for Zope 2/3, but nowadays tries to give this role to the community.
No, I don't think we ever tried that. I think we should.
--
Lennart
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making such decisions and nobody can
properly get
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:04, Roger Ineichen d...@projekt01.ch wrote:
You can also call this anticipation the oposit of participation
:)
The big questions now is, do we like to merge this good things
back to the zope core or do we like to stay with different
packages because we can't find an
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 08:19:37 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 01:51, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Can you stop using the word committee? I didn't use it. A committee is
a bunch of people who has regular meetings, behind closed doors, to make
decisions.
I find this thread quite ironic.
Martijn Faassen recognizes a problem, namely that there is no
direction in Zope development. Instead, when ideas are put forth lots
of people put in their oar with +1s and -1s and stop energy and cheer
leading one direction or another. In the end the ideas either
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:33, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Hmmm, I have the slight feeling that your opinions are not that far away.
Of course not. This is, as aways, just a question of loudly agreeing.
--
Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista.
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
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
...
And so far I haven't heard any better ideas than
what Martijn is proposing (no, leaving the status quo, deny there is a
problem and steer by majority is not a counter proposal in my view).
It may be that the idea needs some tweaking,
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big picture in terms of what technologies we adopted
and how we used them.
Just to be clear, I
On 3/2/09 6:36 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
To people who are suggesting we don't need a steering group nor a name
for the Zope Framework, please answer the following questions:
* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
disagree? What is the mechanism for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 14:45 Uhr, Paul Everitt wrote:
In the past we've seen things like let's unify Zope by merging the
Zope2 and Zope3 mailing lists get shot down by a couple of loud no
votes. Loud no's have grown paralyzing.
This topic is still
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
Me? Who?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
I'll chime in as a newbie.
It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
come from we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves
I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the proposal
has potential to make Zope
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Jung li...@zopyx.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- Show quoted text -
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
are done sensibly.
Let me tell you from experience:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
- - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
set is much smaller than either of the others?
Probably none. So having better dependencies would obviously be good. I
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Martijn Pieters wrote:
The irony is that the proposed solution, organized leadership, is
going to suffer the same fate as the aforementioned ideas. Everyone is
putting in their oar, +1s and -1s are flying right, left and centre,
and this idea is either going to die,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
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.
*
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
- - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
set is much smaller than either of the others?
Probably none. So having better dependencies
Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
are done sensibly.
(ie: if you're going to do a big backwards-incompatible
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
gaps we had to plug.
Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
of eggs from PyPI, for instance, which
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
My mild counter proposal was this.
- The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start Zope
projects
- Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he described
- Hopefully, people follow it.
In other words, I suppose,
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
I think Martijn is trying to address something that Zope has lacked for
a while. I don't think it'll solve all of the world's problems, nor do I
think that Martijn things so, but it will make some things - things like
this very debate - a bit easier
Christian Theune wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 02:35 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
* leadership could help sustain efforts like we want the Zope Framework
to run on Jython and make detailed decisions based on this. Nobody
right now can really decide on this.
Anecdote: Our current Jython
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
zope.security dependency could benefit,
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure Plone's model fits Zope perfectly, but certainly there are
some lessons to be learned. We also have some of processes and
documentation already in place, having made a few mistakes along the way.
Definitely, I'm very interested in seeing
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
somebody to bug people about bugs in the bug tracker. That should be
one person, for example. Responsibilities need to be well defined and
individual. There isn't anybody called Someone here, so
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
No. The steering group should not have backroom discussions. They should
act as open as possible. I think of it as a catalyst.
The operative here is *should*. Compare that to *will*. These are
different words. What the steering group *should* do and
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
As much as I prefer discussing with people in real life, there is the
notion of no backroom conversations WRT to driving development of an
open source project.
OK. *Cough*. You and Martijn wrote this proposal. And you asked
Stephan about it. You did
Paul Everitt wrote:
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big picture in terms of what technologies we adopted
and how we used them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to rely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start Zope projects under
the Zope umbrella.
I agree that such projects could compete for attention and may the best
one win.
I think this is
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
Actually Martijn tried to be better than that. :-) Instead of just forming a
steering group (which I would interpret as a Zope project) and announcing it
to the community, he asked for feedback first. :-)
Thanks. :)
I probably agree he should have just
Boy, there's no point in trying to outrun this thread, I'd better just
jump in here. Martin I think you said that very well and I'm convinced.
I appreciate and generally support Martijn's proposal. When in doubt,
I'd be in favour of emulating what's been shown to work in the Plone
community - eg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big
Hi there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
(though I did hear positive news about it). I do have the
impression the framework team strategy works reasonably well; it's been
operating for about 2 releases now?
It works as a way of sharing the load with the release manager. Because
its members don't feel
On 3 Mar 2009, at 18:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Ah, so Plone currently has long term direction as they think 2
releases
ahead of just one?
Plone 4 discussions are happening around now, there are demos of
suggested concepts and people generally working on the codebase.
Plone 5 is a
On 3/3/09 2:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
And you think it's all due to the brand...
Yes! Someone who *wants* to use basic ZCML directives but doesn't want
zope.security, zope.location, zope.publisher, zope.traversing, zope.i18n, and
pytz can *already* use
Hi there,
I thought I should highlight this characterization of the Zope project
because I agree with much of it but also disagree with much of it.
Chris McDonough wrote:
I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the
last
9 years (
9 years is a long time, and
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It might be we are able to establish a framework team without
elections by just picking out the bunch of people who are interested in
this.
That's been the Plone approach to creating the framework team. Some
people just decided to do it and didn't even bothered to ask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 97465:
Branch removing zope.deferred.
This checkin is the branch I had in mind when sketching out a
non-CPython-only zope.component story today. Notes on the changes:
- - The branch kills off both the
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
Log message for revision 97465:
Branch removing zope.deferred.
Changed:
D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
Log message for revision 97465:
Branch removing zope.deferred.
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 and
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
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
On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
[Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start Zope projects
under
the Zope
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
My mild counter proposal was this.
- The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start Zope
projects
- Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he
described
-
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, the only polish I'd love to see is static pages for past dev
releases (or did I miss them?)
Well, it is a matter of version numbering, but all versions that have a unique
version number are listed here:
http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/
We
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
We do have this system today.
http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/waterfall
Wow, great.
Too bad about the failures. How are you announcing the failures ATM?
No, maybe someone can provide that service? ;-)
BTW, I have decided not to go after the
Martin Aspeli wrote:
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
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the things I'm
also in favor of. But we do have real differences in opinion I
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
soon: it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
Why not? It looks that it's just a dependency cleanup, so it can be
merged (and released!) really soon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 7:52 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the
Hi,
In Zope 2.9.9, is there a way to register a traversal adapter and if so
how? I've googled for examples, but haven't found anything pertinent.
I'm not clear where to find the API for the adapter, and also if this is
used in as old a zope as 2.9.9.
Can anyone confirm?
Thanks,
Miles
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 15:50, Miles mi...@jamkit.com wrote:
In Zope 2.9.9, is there a way to register a traversal adapter and if so
how? I've googled for examples, but haven't found anything pertinent.
I'm not clear where to find the API for the adapter, and also if this is
used in as old a
76 matches
Mail list logo
