Hi everyone,
today's the fifth weekly meeting and I hope to see you around 3pm UTC at
#zope at freenode. (Still a few hours to go.)
Please plan 45 minutes for today instead of the usual 30 minutes: the
designated time frame of the meeting as an experiment is ending and thus
I'd like to spend
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Mar 29 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Tue Mar 30 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Mar 29 21:36:32 EDT
Hi,
On 03/30/2010 11:09 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi everyone,
today's the fifth weekly meeting and I hope to see you around 3pm UTC at
#zope at freenode. (Still a few hours to go.)
and ... I screwed up the DST switch and started the meeting an hour
early. I didn't notice, though,
Hi.
For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of
the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C
dependencies in its own distribution, but that's a bit too much for
now.
As a next step I'd like to split out the initgroups, Missing,
MultiMapping, Record and
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of
the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C
dependencies in its own distribution
Why?
Martin (who spent all day trying to get Zope 2 to build on SuSE Linux
before realising
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of
the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C
dependencies in its own distribution
Why?
It
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Martin Aspelioptilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of
the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C
dependencies in its own
* 2010-03-30 17:44, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm generally for it, we just need to (a) make sure we're not going to
negatively impact performance if we can help it and (b) explain our
rationale.
Not sure I understood correctly what Hanno proposed, but we are not going
to negatively impact
On 3/30/10 16:56 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi.
For Zope 2.13 (trunk) I'd like to try to reduce the C dependencies of
the Zope2 distribution itself. Ideally it would not have any C
dependencies in its own distribution, but that's a bit too much for
now.
As a next step I'd like to split out
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
It simplifies the release process for Zope2. In most cases upgrading
to a new version of Zope2 won't involve any changes to C code. If the
C code is split out, we won't have to release any
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
On 3/30/10 16:56 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
If this is done the remaining C libraries are in AccessControl,
DocumentTemplate and ZCTextIndex. AccessControl has a reference
implementation in Python and could the C
On 3/30/10 18:05 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
The C code which we might want to turn into optional optimizations at
a later point, would follow the same standard we already use in the
Zope Toolkit. So there won't be any new kind of risk. For example
zope.i18nmessageid and zope.interface use this
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
If I remember corrcetly Malthe's pure-python variant of zope.i18nmessage
got vetoed late 2008, so it is still requires C compilation.
Look at the source [1] or the release notes for the 3.5.0 release from
last June.
13 matches
Mail list logo
