i should be doing 0.4.7 and 0.5beta3 early this week. both include
"after_attach()".
On Jul 21, 2008, at 4:45 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Malthe Borch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Thanks for the offer. I think this is up to La
Hey,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Malthe Borch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the offer. I think this is up to Laurence to decide, I'd
>> say. I'm aiming my work at the 0.5 series so I'm fine with requiring
>> 0.5.
>
> Me too, but I'd be careful to *requir
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Thanks for the offer. I think this is up to Laurence to decide, I'd
say. I'm aiming my work at the 0.5 series so I'm fine with requiring
0.5.
Me too, but I'd be careful to *require* an unreleased version.
\malthe
___
Zope-Dev m
Michael Bayer wrote:
On Jul 19, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
Laurence Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on SQLAlchemy
trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is released.
Could the fix be backported and a new
On Jul 19, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
Laurence Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on
SQLAlchemy
trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is released.
Could the fix be backported and a new release made? I ha
Laurence Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on SQLAlchemy
> trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is released.
Could the fix be backported and a new release made? I have to have this
particular system ready for production next we
Hi there,
Thanks for the offer. I think this is up to Laurence to decide, I'd
say. I'm aiming my work at the 0.5 series so I'm fine with requiring
0.5.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/z
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on
SQLAlchemy trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is
released.
Maybe it's time to start depending on 0.5?
No problem with that from my side, thoug
Laurence Rowe wrote:
This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on SQLAlchemy
trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is released.
Maybe it's time to start depending on 0.5?
No problem with that from my side, though of course I think this means
beta3 should be released
This is now fixed in trunk. For the moment I'm depending on SQLAlchemy
trunk for the new after_attach hook until beta3 is released.
Maybe it's time to start depending on 0.5?
Laurence
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
I complained recently about problems with things disappearing from an
in-memory s
Brandon Craig Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I complained recently about problems with things disappearing from an
> in-memory sqlite database. It appears that my problems were actually
> symptoms of something else: that, so far as I can see, doing a
>
>transaction.commit()
>
> when SQL
11 matches
Mail list logo
