Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sun Nov 15 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Nov 16 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 4 messages: 4 from CMF Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : CMF-2.1 Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: CMF Tests
Date: Sun Nov 15 21:20:48 EST 2009
URL: ht
Hi,
In the metadata.xml in your profile the best practice is currently to
use plain version numbers, right? So just 1, then 2, then 3 etc and
not 1.0 then 1.1 then 1.2, right?
Using plain version numbers I have just hit a problem that I find
strange that I have not hit before. An upgrade step f
Hi.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Maurits van Rees
wrote:
> In the metadata.xml in your profile the best practice is currently to
> use plain version numbers, right? So just 1, then 2, then 3 etc and
> not 1.0 then 1.1 then 1.2, right?
Yes.
> Using plain version numbers I have just hit a pr
Hi!
CMF 2.2.0-alpha has some getIcon changes based on what I proposed here:
https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
Unfortunately the issue is more complicated than I thought and some
things are now broken in CMF 2.2.0-alpha: The return values of getIcon()
and icon()
Hi.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM, yuppie wrote:
> CMF 2.2.0-alpha has some getIcon changes based on what I proposed here:
> https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2009-January/028059.html
>
> Unfortunately the issue is more complicated than I thought and some
> things are now broken in CMF 2
Hanno Schlichting, on 2009-11-16:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Maurits van Rees
> wrote:
>> In the metadata.xml in your profile the best practice is currently to
>> use plain version numbers, right? So just 1, then 2, then 3 etc and
>> not 1.0 then 1.1 then 1.2, right?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Using pl
