Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
| Andrew Milton wrote:
| +---[ Stephan Richter ]--
| | Hello everyone,
| |
| | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
| | development process and
Jim Fulton wrote:
Only you and Philipp were excited about this. Not sure that
constitutes a ringing endorsement. Maybe others will chime in now.
I'm +10 too.
I'd like to see this happen before the end of the year.
Well, given that the majority are +/-0 and with the exception of one or
Fred Drake wrote:
On 2/16/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be clear: I'm talking _only_ about merging the dev lists, _not_ the
user lists. The users lists are still largely independent, but it seems
like just about every post to the dev list now has a bearing on both
Zope 2 and
done
--On 21. Februar 2006 08:00:47 +0100 robert rottermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 21:37:10 +0100 Andreas Jung
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am plan to release Zope 2.8.6 and 2.9.1 in the middle of February
(around Feb, 15th).
Unfortunately I am
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3168
Blamelist: andreasjung,hdima,jim,oestermeier,shh,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Hi there,
I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
There are a few places in Zope 2 where they are still used for checks
(mostly webdav, OFS, ZCTextIndex). For the
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
|
| Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a
| Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just
| like that code is to be made ZPL.
The license part is irrelevant
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Stephan Richter ]--
| Hello everyone,
|
| With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
| development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the
adoption
| of Zope 3
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
+10
But we can't deprecate z2 interfaces as long as Zope 2 itself uses them
yuppie wrote:
I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
+10
But we can't deprecate z2 interfaces as long as Zope 2 itself uses them
for other tasks than
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
There are a few places in Zope 2 where they are still used for checks
(mostly webdav, OFS, ZCTextIndex).
In detail these are:
1.) WriteLock: Objects are only lockable if their class has
WriteLockInterface in its __implements__ list.
On Monday 20 February 2006 19:24, Martin Aspeli wrote:
My immediate concern is about resources: Who will have the time or
incentive to police the common repository and grant certification? It
seems to be a non-trivial process that may end up being quite
time-consuming. It may be perceived as
On Monday 20 February 2006 20:09, Andrew Milton wrote:
So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign
over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation
later), and then check it into the svn respository.
Is this is correct?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a*
repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example
the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
Correct.
I had earlier
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote:
Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context.
block quote
The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level
repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating
everything in the wider Zope
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 03:57, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages:
* it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into
a Zope distribution.
* putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term
snip IP discussion
Okay, this discussion is off-topic. I will not respond to it, unless I read
about something that relates directly to the proposal.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:13, Andrew Milton wrote:
Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for
(parts of) SchoolTool? I'm sure he has more than enough ways to protect his
IP. Or are you saying that it makes sense for ZF/ZC to protect him?
The reason the
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:30, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer
a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows,
perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :).
That
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:15, Andrew Milton wrote:
The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope
Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be
'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case.
That's not true. Phillip and I both negated
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:47, whit wrote:
what hopefully zscp would do is allow a code commons at one end (ala
collective, easy entry, friendly to experimentation) and a fully
certified set of components at the other.
In between, there would be well defined process for how software moves
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be
decoupled.
The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I
decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons:
(1) Bandwidth.
Stephan Richter wrote:
(2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience
in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have
practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not
getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3191
Blamelist: frerich,hdima,mkerrin,philikon,srichter,whitmo,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
24 matches
Mail list logo
