[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) ==
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 ol
[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 w
Hi!
Tim Peters wrote:
[yuppie]
http://svn.zope.org/?view=rev&rev=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
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
[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
> `/cygdri
Hi Mark!
Mark Hammond wrote:
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
`/cygdrive
> [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.
>
> [A
[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 onl
--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 usi
[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 WinBuilders
for Zope 2.8.
Note that these two aren't about Zope 2.8, they'
--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). Sinc
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
release
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
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 definiti
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 ZopeTes
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 th
--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 dep
--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
-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
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,
> >
Gfeller Martin wrote:
Dear Jim,
are there already plans when Zope 2.8 should see the light of the day?
Other than soon, no. It depend on resources, including non-ZC contributors,
and problems we encounter.
I've updated the project area at:
http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8
i
23 matches
Mail list logo
