Hi!
Tim Peters wrote:
[yuppie]
http://svn.zope.org/?view=revrev=30334 changed the behavior of
undoInfo() in a way that is not backwards compatible.
That's true, or at least off-by-one different than recent ZODB 3.2s.
Rev 30334 fixed two bugs in the implementation, so that the behavior
[yuppie]
...
Don't know what other people think. I believe restoring the old undoInfo
behavior and adjusting the documentation would be the best solution.
Fixing this in undoable_transactions would fork the behavior of both
methods and fixing all products that depend on the old behavior would
Tim Peters wrote:
[yuppie]
...
Don't know what other people think. I believe restoring the old undoInfo
behavior and adjusting the documentation would be the best solution.
Fixing this in undoable_transactions would fork the behavior of both
methods and fixing all products that depend on the
[yuppie]
...
These are the two use cases I'm aware of. Both only use last 0 and
both expect slicing behavior for positive values, e.g. these conditions
should be True if we don't change undoable_transactions::
db.undoInfo(0, 20) == db.undoInfo(0, 99)[0:20]
db.undoInfo(20, 40) ==
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 07.05.2005, 12:56 -0400 schrieb Tim Peters:
Both appear to be due to that Zope 2.7.6 on Windows shipped with a
wrong (too old) version of pywin32, and continued to repackage pywin32
in the old (certifiably insane 0.7 wink) flat way.
Mark Hammond submitted patches to
[Andreas Jung]
At least the following are important (besides the problem with the
Winbuilder)
[Tim Peters]
What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a
problem there,
but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using WinBuilders
for Zope 2.8.
[Andreas]
I know only
[Mark Hammond]
For me, WinBuilders *seemed* to work fine - until I realized that it was
reusing files from my previous 2.7 build. After nuking my 'build'
directory, I get this error:
touch /cygdrive/e/src/zope-packages/build/lib/python/Zope/Startup/run.py
touch: creating
Andreas Jung wrote:
in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the Zope
2.8 release on hold for now.
There are several open issues related to running Zope on Windows
(building, startup problems). Since
we need to have a stable source code release and a stable windows
--On Samstag, 7. Mai 2005 10:15 Uhr +0200 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the Zope
2.8 release on hold for now.
There are several open issues related to running Zope on Windows
(building, startup problems). Since
--On Samstag, 7. Mai 2005 12:56 Uhr -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Andreas Jung]
At least the following are important (besides the problem with the
Winbuilder)
What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a problem there,
but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using
[Andreas Jung]
At least the following are important (besides the problem with the
Winbuilder)
[Tim Peters]
What WinBuilders problem? I keep hearing there's a problem there,
but don't know what it is -- and I had no problem using WinBuilders
for Zope 2.8.
[Andreas]
I know only that
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
Right. Here's what we could do:
1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So you would have the Zope 2.8 interfaces exist in the Five.interfaces
module?
Well, no. Five.interfaces would stay as it is; it seems to be pretty accurate
for Zope 2.7 (especially with yuppie's fixes, which should be merged to the
Five-1.0
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Right. Here's what we could do:
1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
I would prefer to reserve the name 'interfaces' for Zope 3 interfaces.
So far ZopeTestCase is
yuppie wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Right. Here's what we could do:
1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
I would prefer to reserve the name 'interfaces' for Zope 3 interfaces.
So far
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
from Plone in Zope 2.8.
It offers some the nice extension to limit the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
from Plone in Zope 2.8.
It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and
improves building navigation-trees
or similar structures.
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 8:00 Uhr -0400 Tres Seaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I doubt many folks on this list know the code that well. Are you
thinking to lift the features you mention, making them part of the
regular PathIndex? Also, what
Christian Theune wrote:
- Does a proposal for the post-traverse-hook have a chance for 2.8? (The
code is here completely working on 2.7, I only need to write tests.)
Please, write tests and merge to the HEAD. I see no reason why this
shouldn't go into 2.8.
Cheers,
Evan @ 4-am
Sorry for creating a mess,
I get the error with and without VerboseSecurity.
The one VerboseSecurity I am using is only a couple of days old from CVS.
I thought this one was allready adapted.
Robert
On Saturday 17 January 2004 16:04, Jim Fulton wrote:
Gfeller Martin wrote:
Dear Jim,
20 matches
Mail list logo
