I have written unit tests for all the new functionality including
what I
believe to be the first CMFCore test suite to use ZopeTestCase.
ZopeTestCase provides a lot of useful functionality, including
functional tests, that I think will make for easier test writing going
forward.
Is there anyt
On 2 Sep 2005, at 23:49, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:08:37 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
IMHO there is at least one problematic item (well, it's not for the
trunk, but for the 1.5/1.4 branches), which is the dependency on
ZopeTestCase. The way the code works right no
On 3 Sep 2005, at 21:00, Geoff Davis wrote:
IMHO they should not fail, they just should not be run. People with a
"normal" CMF 1.5-based setup and without ZopeTestCase should not see
failing tests because another third-party package is not installed.
That's confusing.
Well, it's not exactly a
e active in supporting the CMF.
...to report bugs?
The "CMF Collector":http://zope.org/Collectors/CMF
is ths place to report bugs (please search for existing
reports of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Sep 2005, at 11:45, Florent Guillaume wrote:
However this kind of default fixture actually is quite heavy, and
makes you write tests that are hardly "unit" anymore. They are
still good integration tests, but I've found that using
PortalTestCase or something like that is often extremely
On 6 Sep 2005, at 11:19, yuppie wrote:
Hi!
If there are no objections I'll make Zope 2.8.1 the required
platform for CMF trunk/1.6 and remove the Zope 2.8.0 backwards
compatibility code.
Reasons:
- I hope some day CMF-tseaver-z3_interfaces-branch will be finished
and merged. To do th
On 8 Sep 2005, at 11:08, yuppie wrote:
- Please make sure your checkins show up on the CMF-checkins list.
Don't know if Tres can fix that for you or if you've got to
register for that list.
I was wondering why I did not get any mail... Geoff, can you double-
check that the email address y
On 8 Sep 2005, at 12:00, yuppie wrote:
PS Those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTestCase causing
test
problems in Zope 2.7 might want to take a look at why
test_z3interfaces is
broken when you run the tests with zopectl test.
1.) Why "those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTest
On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:52, Julien Anguenot wrote:
Thoughts ?
Why do you ask for feedback after committing? Surely the correct
procedure would be to ask forst and commit later..?
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.z
On 8 Sep 2005, at 16:48, Geoff Davis wrote:
bin/zopectl test --dir Products/CMFCore/tests
I get a bunch of errors like the following:
==
ERROR: test_z3interfaces
(CMFCore.tests.test_ActionInformation.ActionInfoTests)
--
On 8 Sep 2005, at 18:24, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:45:54 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
All those tests run fine for me using your branch and a vanilla Zope
2.7.6. I'd make a wild guess and say it's your setup.
Could be. Did you try removing th
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:10, yuppie wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:33:53 +0200, yuppie wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that test_Template304Handling.py
depends on PortalTestCase? Do you plan to change that before
merging your branch?
Yes, I am aware of that fact. No,
On 9 Sep 2005, at 16:02, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd like to have some public chat about the "CMF 2.0" roadmap, in
particular resolving issues which impact the "downstream"
applications /
frameworks (CPS and Plone, particulary). Will Monday at 15:00
Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in question:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
rev=38439&view=rev
Geoff, as the one with the most "domain knowledge" as far as the code
changes go, could you check the tests (and especially the co
Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data
between CMFSetup type information XML files and
factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules. It
would be cool if the XML files could comp
CMFFSContent - Put CMF content onto the file system
If you are looking for a way to manage content on the file system in
order to take advantage of better editors, source control systems and
other utilities you might be interested in CMFFSContent.
CMFFSContent represents a content-ish equiv
On 11 Sep 2005, at 17:22, yuppie wrote:
Here's some food for thought about a possible code simplification:
I was looking at the (annoying) duplication of configuration data
between CMFSetup type information XML files and
factory_type_information structures stored inside python modules.
I
On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:46, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Log message for revision 38449:
- Backport Jens V. changes to Geoff D.'s Caching Policy Manager
branch
Sidnei, you're a bit overeager - I am still waiting for feedback from
Geoff! ;)
jens
_
On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:42, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
|
| On 12 Sep 2005, at 13:46, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
|
| >Log message for revision 38449:
| >
| > - Backport Jens V. changes to Geoff D.'s Caching Policy Man
On 12 Sep 2005, at 17:12, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in
question:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
rev=38439&view=rev
Geoff, as the
On 21 Sep 2005, at 11:48, Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 38552:
CMFSetup: added support for configuring cookie auth and mailhost
tools
This patch is broken, as I am finding out. Please don't put it on the
head until it is fixed. In CMF 1.5 it's now impossible to add a
"C
On 21 Sep 2005, at 16:50, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005, at 11:48, Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 38552:
CMFSetup: added support for configuring cookie auth and
mailhost tools
This patch is broken, as I am finding out. Please don't put it on
the head unt
On 22 Sep 2005, at 11:55, computing project wrote:
Apologies! Although I had tested adding the configured site via
the ZMI several times (though only on 2.8), the removal of the two
lines in setuphandlers somehow got missed out when I posted the
code and patches.
It is true that I didn'
On 22 Sep 2005, at 12:55, pete wrote:
Thanks that has made everything much clearer. I'll make sure I
label clearly what conditions I've tested things under in future: I
hadn't fully appreciated that the head might have different
dependencies from the 1.5 branch, though the possibility see
On 21 Sep 2005, at 18:10, yuppie wrote:
I see sporadic import errors caused by circular imports:
While not documented in CMFTopic/DEPENDENCIES.txt, http://
svn.zope.org/CMF/trunk/?rev=38002&view=rev added a new dependency
on CMFDefault's SkinnedFolder.
Not sure how to resolve this.
Pe
Just noticed another debilitating problem with the new cookie
crumbler setup driven by CMFSetup in both SVN trunk and the 1.5 branch.
Symptom: In a new CMFSetup-created site, no one can log in at all. Ever.
Problem: The CookieCrumbler.__call__ method is being registered as
before traverse ho
Eww. Can we have instead of as the element name
please?
Sure, go ahead and check it in, before anybody but Pete and I have
snapshots which break. ;)
That's done now.
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mai
On 23 Sep 2005, at 01:29, Tres Seaver wrote:
We could '_setId' on the tool with the 'tool_id' attribute after
creating it, if the tool does not derive from
CMFCore.utils.ImmutableId.
That's what I ended up doing. Fixes and a test checked in.
jens
___
On 24 Sep 2005, at 18:10, Florent Guillaume wrote:
CMFonFive has been merged to the CMF trunk, yay!
It depends on Five but of course that's standard now that Zope
2.8.1 is
required.
Thanks Florent!
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists
(Note to the sprinters, mostly)
The SVN trunk is currently broken, and this has to do with
GenericSetup. I get this exception when trying to run a unit test:
*
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/local/zope/opt/Zope-2.8.1/bin/test.py", l
Pilot error, false alarm, sorry. I never linked GenericSetup into my
instance products... ;)
jens
On 24 Sep 2005, at 20:09, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
(Note to the sprinters, mostly)
The SVN trunk is currently broken, and this has to do with
GenericSetup. I get this exception when trying to
def test_DocView(self):
url = self.doc1.absolute_url_path()
import pdb; pdb.set_trace()
response = self.publish(url, self.basic_auth)
Some stepping around with pdb reveals this:
(Pdb) n
/zope/ZopeSoftwareHome/lib/python/ZPublisher/Publish.py(101)publish()
->
On 5 Oct 2005, at 23:07, Paul Winkler wrote:
-> request, bind=1)
(Pdb) n
NotFound: 'document_view'
The machinery doesn't know which skin is selected I presume. You can
"force" it by calling "changeSkin" on the skinnable object manager
(the portal is one) to select a skin path as set up in the
On 11 Oct 2005, at 20:02, yuppie wrote:
Hi Tres!
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm seeing a bunch of errors and failures when running the unit
tests on
the trunk, in both GenericSetup and CMFSetup (see attached file).
Does anyone have a clue why? I'd l
On 11 Oct 2005, at 20:44, Tres Seaver wrote:
Would it be helpful to make DEPENDENCIES.txt a little more specific,
e.g. it would say "Zope 2.8 branch after 2005/10/10; Five trunk after
2005/10/07" or something like that?
I was working in a sandbox without its own checkout of Five, which was
th
So I've dabbling a little bit hooking up some Five view class code
Tres gave me so that it actually gets called when viewing the item.
It seems to be registered the wrong way somehow and I'm getting this
traceback:
Traceback (innermost last):
Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 113, in publis
On 13 Oct 2005, at 09:53, pete wrote:
--
---
From digging in Five/browser/metaconfigure.py the browser:page
tag should have triggered code that inserts the name "index" on
the view class. But appa
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
From a first look, I think it will have inserted the name
'index.html' on the view class, so if you type /address/to/link/
index.html then you should get the template.
Tried that, same failure...
bah! Next attempt - I copied an example from Five
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
bah! Next attempt - I copied an example from Five to get started
and it Just Worked, so you must be close!
Should it not be rather than ?
And I'm not sure it should have a name="link_view" in the
containing definition as that would apply to all the c
On 14 Oct 2005, at 08:55, sureshvv wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:39, pete wrote:
I'll work on converting more content types along the same lines
over the next few days on a svn branch.
Can you write-up a brief HOW-TO also please?
There can't be any h
Doing some more work on Five views for CMF right now. I have the edit
view hooked up and working find for my sample content type. The view
class given to me by Tres defines a POST method, but I can't seem to
get that hooked up correctly. So far I have tried the following:
- assume since the
On 16 Oct 2005, at 16:21, yuppie wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Doing some more work on Five views for CMF right now. I have the
edit view hooked up and working find for my sample content type.
The view class given to me by Tres defines a POST method, but I
can't seem to get that h
On 22 Oct 2005, at 00:27, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just checked in a preliminary pass at viewifying the
'full_metadata_form' (now 'metadata.html' as a view):
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/CMF/branches/tseaver-viewification
I expanded the branc
Forwarding and replying to Hanno's response - I suppose Gmane replies
don't go to the list.
On 22 Oct 2005, at 16:40, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
These test failures are due to Five 1.1 monkey patching. See http://
article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.z3base.five/756 or http://
article.gm
On 22 Oct 2005, at 17:23, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 21. Oktober 2005 19:27:38 -0400 Tres Seaver
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Performance on the view version is nearly twice the "classic"
version (14.2 ms vs 24.2 ms on my box).
Any idea why the view version is such slow? I thoug
There's an outstanding issue in the collector about workflow scripts
that are external methods. Currently, creating a snapshot of a site
with external methods on the Scripts tab of a DCWorkflow will just
blow up. The real question here is: Do we want to support that at
all? Taking a quick l
On 24 Oct 2005, at 18:29, Tres Seaver wrote:
- External methods gain support by extending the saved
information to
collect module/function values for external methods instead of
trying
to read the body. This *will* make an import blow up if the
filesystem code the external method relies on i
It's been exactly two months today that CMF 1.5.4 was released as the
latest release from the 1.5 branch. A lot of work has been done as
evidenced by the change log.
I'm not sure if it's helpful for the main "consumer" of CMF releases
(-> Plone), but those who develop their own solutions on
On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:02, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having
a beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit
next weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release.
The wee
On 4 Nov 2005, at 02:02, Florent Guillaume wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having
a beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit
next weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release.
The weekend after that I'm back in Germany a
On 4 Nov 2005, at 14:03, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:18:12 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I'm not sure if it's helpful for the main "consumer" of CMF releases
(-> Plone), but those who develop their own solutions on top of the
CMF might appreciate a releas
On 6 Nov 2005, at 06:03, Brent Hendricks wrote:
I believe I have discovered a bug in CMFCore/ActionsTool.py on the
trunk. The implementation of getActionObject() which it inherits from
ActionProviderBase seems to be expecting self.listActions() to return
ActionInformation objects since it cal
pants who are active in supporting the CMF.
...to report bugs?
The "CMF Collector":http://zope.org/Collectors/CMF
is the place to report bugs (please search for existing
reports of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
On 9 Nov 2005, at 15:17, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Does someone have a problem with me doing that in the CMF 1.5
branch? All with tests of course.
Does this have to happen now? Can we compromise, keep it out of 1.5.5
and create a 1.5.6 in a month or so?
jens
__
On 12 Nov 2005, at 09:04, yuppie wrote:
A CMF 1.6 release that requires Zope 2.8 and essentially bundles
CMF 1.5 with GenericSetup 2.0 (and compatible CMF setup handlers)
might be a good idea.
Yes, that's a good idea. It certainly can't go directly in the
strictly-maintenance 1.5 branch.
On 13 Nov 2005, at 08:21, Florent Guillaume wrote:
To repost an earlier mail:
The patch I propose to include is:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-checkins/2005-November/007137.html
Could some Plone folks please test that switching to
CMF/branches/efge-1.5-five-compatible instead of CMF/branc
On 14 Nov 2005, at 22:28, Rob Miller wrote:
okay, i've created a CMF-1.6 branch that has branched everything
from CMF-1.5 with the exception of CMFSetup and GenericSetup, which
are svn:externals from the CMF trunk.
note that i've haven't actually started any backporting yet, and as
such t
On 15 Nov 2005, at 02:56, Rob Miller wrote:
to be fair, AT's (un)indexing code is a mess... i tried to change
the BaseFolderMixin manage_(after|before)* methods so they
explicitly call the PortalFolder implementations and was still
ending up w/ subobject orphans left in the catalog after co
On 15 Nov 2005, at 05:07, yuppie wrote:
TODO:
- update deprecation warnings on the 1.5 and 1.6 branch, replacing
"will be removed in CMF 1.6" by "will be removed in CMF 2.0"
check
TODO:
- update deprecation warnings on the 1.5 and 1.6 branch, replacing
"will be removed in CMF 1.7" by
On 15 Nov 2005, at 14:24, yuppie wrote:
The notes should be logged *and* used for reporting in the ZMI.
Implementation:
I'm no logging expert, so I might well be missing something. The
state of the art seems to be using the Python logging package (PEP
282). Is it possible to use that fram
On 16 Nov 2005, at 09:29, Florent Guillaume wrote:
In what environement do people playing with CMF 2.0 (trunk) work ?
Because when used with Zope 2 trunk, there are many failing unit
tests.
I haven't done much that requires running the tests for a while, but
I used to build them with wha
ectors/CMF
is ths place to report bugs (please search for existing
reports of your issue first!)
-
Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
On 4 Nov 2005, at 00:18, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I propose cutting 1.5.5beta this Sunday (November 6th) and having a
beta phase lasting 2 weeks, mostly because I'll be in Detroit next
weekend and probably won't be able to cut a final release. The
weekend after that I'm back
On 20 Nov 2005, at 16:24, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Florent, what are your requirements for the events changes you
wanted to see in 1.5.5 originally? I'm wondering if that's really
1.6 material now that we have a 1.6 branch? Let me know if you
want it in 1.5 and we can plan a 1.5.6 release,
On 21 Nov 2005, at 10:15, Rui Gamito wrote:
Is there a way to import email addresses (newsletter subscribers)
from a
csv file?
I've never tried to import anything other than zexp files, but I've
been
told it was possible, and effortless, using the usual import/export...
Well, it's not work
On 2 Dec 2005, at 17:02, George Lee wrote:
The repeated "CMF Collector: Open Issues" e-mails always get my hope
up that some of the issues I posted will get assigned. :-) What's the
typical time it takes for an issue to be accepted and then resolved?
There is no "typical time" I am afraid. P
On 2 Dec 2005, at 18:58, yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
import Testing
-import Zope2
-Zope2.startup()
I'm seeing issues in some tests which fail when run outside the full
suite after changes like these. E.g.,
zopectl> test CMFDefault
I'm trying to run those tests and seem to come agains
On 2 Dec 2005, at 19:41, George Lee wrote:
P.S.: Please do not reply to digest emails without changing the
subject line to something useful *and* cutting the unnecessary
stuff out of the quoted text.
Sorry, I realized right after I replied. :-(
I'd be interested in helping patch some stuff e
On 2 Dec 2005, at 18:58, yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
import Testing
-import Zope2
-Zope2.startup()
I'm seeing issues in some tests which fail when run outside the full
suite after changes like these. E.g.,
zopectl> test CMFDefault
These issues are not present on the trunk, they are s
On 13 Dec 2005, at 15:55, Florent Guillaume wrote:
I'd like to make the Properties tab go first, before Contents, in
the setup_tool. Opinions ?
Not sure it really matters... +0 from me, if you think it's
important, go ahead.
jens
___
Zope-CMF
On 15 Dec 2005, at 10:39, yuppie wrote:
After having a closer look at this I agree that PrettyDocument is
broken because it doesn't respect the 'indent' argument of
toprettyxml() in all places. I have a fix for this in my sandbox,
but svn.zope.org is down.
I just fixed svn.zope.org.
jens
Yvo,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I assume
that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
rev=40364&r1=40360&r2=40364
I'm in the specific situation whe
On 20 Dec 2005, at 13:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I
assume that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
rev=40364&r1=4
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0
have different ways to register custom type info classes. Before
that change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because
they were merged in an insane way.
I fixed the new m
On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to
1.5 as possible, with the exception of GenericSetup. the types
stuff is the greyest area, however, because the changes in the way
TypeInfo objects are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a consi
On 20 Dec 2005, at 23:32, yuppie wrote:
After reading the thread you mention, which isn't all that clear
when it comes to outlining what the consequences of some of these
code changes are, I'm confused. I think I can boil it down to one
question: What is the use of the CMF 1.6 branch if it
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:14, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Unless someone fixes that CMFDynamicsomethingFTI thing (or the
CMF 1.6 branch) people cannot even attempt to run Plone 2.1 or
2.2 against CMF 1.6. This is like a stalemate. Can you suggest
how to add a new kind of factory information cla
On 21 Dec 2005, at 12:06, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Starting to look into this myself I just wasted a couple of minutes
because of my outdated setup (I had a plain Zope-2.8.4-final release)
Looking at INSTALL.txt from the CMF-1.6 bundle I found
Requirements
- Zope 2.8.1 or later
...
so I t
On 22 Dec 2005, at 03:10, Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I don't quite understand the distinction between "compatible with
products written for Plone 2.1 but not with Plone 2.1", I can't
see any sense in that route... it all comes back to one question:
What
On 22 Dec 2005, at 17:09, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I think this brings up the need for a slightly more formalized
planning
and release process. Given the requisite backing by at least the
main
developers (meaning their agreement that they would actually use
such a
On 30 Dec 2005, at 17:17, Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Hi,
I have come to a site setup with CMF 1.3.1
I am asked to migrate it to newer code.
Are there any special things I need to know about before I upgrade
the CMF products ?
No one will have an answer to that one. The only sane solution
On 2 Jan 2006, at 16:22, Florent Guillaume wrote:
These tests fail on Mac OS X, any similar experience on linux?
Something to do with filesystem accesses...
Hi Florent,
I have to assume your environment is not quite right - the tests run
to completion without any error on my laptop (OS X
On 5 Jan 2006, at 09:40, Lennart Regebro wrote:
this makes sense. i'm -1 on the final CMFonFive piece landing in CMF
1.6 itself, though. the original scope for CMF 1.6 was "CMF 1.5 +
GenericSetup", i don't see a compelling reason to complicate
things by
expanding that scope. if CMFonFive s
To make it easier to identify issues deemed a release blocker for CMF
2.0 I have added another classification to the collector, "CMF 2.0
release blocker". It is intended for all issues that must be resolved
before CMF 2.0 is released in its final form. It won't be used as a
pool where peopl
On 11 Jan 2006, at 18:42, Tres Seaver wrote:
I have "posted a blog entry,",
http://palladion.com/home/tseaver/obzervationz/2006/
cmf_2_0_update_20060111
summarizing what I think is the current status of the project. Please
comment here on ths list, correcting my mistakes or omissions, as wel
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:44, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/12/06, yuppie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for dropping Zope 2.8 support
On that, it can be mentioned that for the fiveactions tool, having
both 2.8 and 2.9 support requires quite some work and code
duplication, so I'm +N on dropping 2.8
On 12 Jan 2006, at 22:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
The only thing that bothers me is the lack of local skin
customisations. Does that mean that there is *no* way to e.g.
overide document_view.pt or whatever else? Or just no TTW way? In
fact, I'm -1 on releasing with either limitation, but I thi
On 13 Jan 2006, at 01:07, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Indeed, when Plone starts depending on CMF 2 (which may happen for
the 3.0 release cycle) we'd look to find a way to make skin/
template-only customisations work TTW (at least I'd push for that);
if that work's interesting to CMF, it may land th
On 15 Jan 2006, at 07:18, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
2) work on the latest version of CMFonFive supported on Zope 2.8
(CMFonFive 1.2 svn branch) and provide a monkey patch for CMF 1.5
there.
Why do we need to support CMF 1.5? CMF 1.6 works on Zope 2.8. The
whole
CMFonFive version
On 15 Jan 2006, at 12:04, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
CMFonFive version dance confuses the heck out of me, we should
try to
keep things simple.
Yes, I agree. So I think all of CMFonFive, including these changes,
should be in CMF 1.6. That ends the dance. It was
On 15 Jan 2006, at 12:39, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/15/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Philipp is right, we really cannot drop Zope 2.8-compatibility for
CMF 1.6. If you simply drop any further CMF 1.5 work
It's not a matter of work, but of number of versions.
On 15 Jan 2006, at 16:31, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 1/11/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/11/06, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right, the five_actions tool is still completely borked.
CMFonFive 1.3
has the correct one, and today I checked in a fix there, so I
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of the
CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything or
anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
jens
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope
On 16 Jan 2006, at 11:26, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Are we really sure a further Five feature release for Zope 2.8 is
actually needed? What's happening with CMF and Plone in this
regard? Is
Plone 2.5 still targeting Zope 2.8?
Yes.
Is CMF?
CMF 1.6 is. I ho
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Everyone: I'll be working on this tonight. Plea
On 16 Jan 2006, at 18:28, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006, at 18:38, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Before cutting the CMF 2.0 alpha GenericSetup should move out of
the CMF repository. I'm volunteering to do that. Is there anything
or anyone I need to wait on before doing so?
Eve
On 17 Jan 2006, at 10:44, yuppie wrote:
Work finished, please check out GenericSetup from here now:
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/GenericSetup/trunk
The original proposal also proposed to "include it in the CMF via a
svn:external link", see
http://palladion.com/home/tseaver/obzervationz/
On 17 Jan 2006, at 16:13, Tres Seaver wrote:
I don't think the burden of maintaining 'svn:external' is worse
than the
burden of maintaining the correct version ID in DEPENDENCIES.txt. I
*want* to distribute GenericSetup with the CMF tarball, in fact,
which
makes 'svn:external' seem the Ri
Hi all,
I will cut the CMF 2.0 alpha this coming Sunday, no matter what. I'll
do as much as I can myself as far as cleanup goes beforehand, but in
order to get it out I'm no longer waiting for others' tasks.
The alpha is *not* the branching point for a 2.0 branch, that happens
when the fi
On 17 Jan 2006, at 15:39, Tres Seaver wrote:
What do people think, do we want a svn:external or do we want to just
mention it as a requirement in the docs (such as README, INSTALL,
DEPENDENCIES)?
I don't think the burden of maintaining 'svn:external' is worse
than the
burden of maintaining
101 - 200 of 594 matches
Mail list logo
