-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 8:50 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
this as
continuing our
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of
the things I'm
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 09:21, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
To the extent we can discourage the formation of the
one-big-group-to-rule-them-all by encouraging the formation of smaller
groups, I
think it's a good idea. But in reality, I think nothing needs to be done:
group-forming
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which leads to the following:
- How would these groups be formed? If there's nobody who encourages people to
do so,
They will be formed
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 08:16:26 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
[snip]
- I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
complete programming experience. Thus there needs to be some integrating
force, that draws together all these packages, writes some
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which leads to the following:
- How does some foreigner know, if a package is
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:56, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Mar 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Mar 4 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue Mar 3 20:21:23 EST 2009
URL:
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com schrieb:
Index: src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
===
--- src/zc/dict/configure.zcml (.../trunk) (revision 0)
+++ src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
On 3/4/09 1:07 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, the you above in you scolded was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the scolding had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
Paul Everitt wrote:
When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
Tres Seaver wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 97465:
Branch removing zope.deferred.
This checkin is the branch I had in mind when sketching out a
non-CPython-only zope.component story today.
Wonderful, +1
I think the change makes sense from the perspective of
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
the time of the
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have.
Hi Paul
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
Everybody wins.
Hopefully such solutions will be the norm in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
- - Due to the 'test' extra, buildout pulls in a bunch of extra
dependencies, which I would like to zap (ZODB? really? just to
verify that the persistent registry survives
On 3/4/09 9:47 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Paul
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
Everybody wins.
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
You can try to bake more leadership of the overall Zope community into
this, but I think this is a fruitless fight right now. Reduce the scope,
try make some things better and don't step on other peoples feet if you
don't need to. For example don't
Hey there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
1) I'm not in favor of a single steering group for the *entirety* of all Zope
software. We've tried a similar thing in the past (via the foundation
structure); it didn't work and I'm not sure how we'd expect things to turn out
any differently this time.
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
that the upcoming ZF board will have a good representation of each Zope
project on the board in order to address things
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't agree the Zope Foundation board should directly steer
development of the Zope software.
I totally agree.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development and Training
Google me. Zope Stephan Richter
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
This just seems like a blindingly obvious antigoal to actually breaking apart
the software into more discrete bits using eggs. Why not just stick with a
huge
tarball release or one single egg if it all has to be versioned through time
to
99% of its consumers
Baiju M wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
[snip]
- I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
complete programming experience. Thus there needs to be some integrating
force, that draws together all these packages, writes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
that the upcoming ZF
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I don't
see
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
something small.
It's not small, as it has an impact on a lot of things that build on
zope.component.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I looked at this, but guessing or reliably getting to the zopepy script
wasn't possible. So I added an explicit option to the script instead and
documented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 18:18 Uhr, Tres Seaver wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
I looked at this, but guessing or reliably getting to the zopepy script
wasn't possible. So I added an explicit
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip
* A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
splitting up into individually packaged and released bits, we are forced
to think about these things more.
(I'm running
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the
Hi there,
I think all this makes sense, so +1 from me.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
Baiju M wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-include package=zope.file/
I believe people still use the ZCML slug files like the above.
They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
[snip]
The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
(which would be a distinct entity) would manage themselves and the Zope
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip
* A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
splitting up into individually packaged
Chris McDonough wrote:
I believe to get success here (measured as gaining new Python developer
users),
our path forward needs to be way, way, way more radical and needs to involve
making hard choices that treat individual packages on their own merit rather
than even considering their role as
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:27, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
If it's impossible for these people to agree when discussing on this
mailing list today, why would the suddenly agree on this mailing list
if we call them The Zope Framework Steering Group? I really don't
understand
Hi there,
Enough discussion. I'm taking a few next steps so we can make progress.
I'm going to arbitrarily assume we have enough of a consensus to move
forward. Next step is to Just Do It, as Gary said.
So, as of right now, we have the Zope Framework. We have a Zope
Framework Steering Group.
Hi there,
We have an area called 'zope3docs':
http://svn.zope.org/zope3docs/
which contains many documents that are actually more about the Zope
Framework than the Zope 3 app server. In fact I suspect all of these
documents are more about the framework than anything else, so we should
move
Hi there,
This document contains the decisions made by the Zope Framework Steering
Group:
http://svn.zope.org/zopeframework/trunk/decisions.txt
This is the project area for the zopeframework steering group:
http://svn.zope.org/zopeframework/trunk
It is currently designated to contain
2009/3/4 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
Hi there,
We have an area called 'zope3docs':
http://svn.zope.org/zope3docs/
which contains many documents that are actually more about the Zope
Framework than the Zope 3 app server. In fact I suspect all of these
documents are more about
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip
Well, that docs are currently not necessarily about the zope
framework (as far as I understood what's zope framework now), but
more about general development guidelines applied to any package in
zope svn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
something small.
It's not small,
Hey Tres,
Could you repost this to a new thread as I think people aren't paying
attention to this thread very much anymore? I'd very much like to make
progress on actual cleanups now.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Baiju M wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-include package=zope.file/
I believe people still use the ZCML slug files like the above.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(reposted at Martijn's request in a new thread).
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Those files exist to allow for a use case we may have abandoned, which
is allowing packages to be installed in such a way that a tool could
help users enable / disable their configurations, without mutating
something like 'site.zcml'. The folks who might
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
It probably could be (in fact, I prototyped it there first). However,
it turns out that zope.hookable has effectively *no* clients beyond
zope.component, which meant that I could lose the 'install_requires'
dependency altogether by moving the pure-Python bits to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip
4. Rework zope.hookable to use a pure-Python implementation via
descriptors, instead of the C extension. Make it a non-optional
dependency (but small and lightweight) of zope.component. If
*current*
Hi Martijn, Shane
I fixed some issues in zope.publisher and at the same
time I implemented the default skin pattern within
an adapter pattern.
The adapter getDefaultSkin in zope.publisher.browser.py
is registered in configure.zcml
The changes are compatible within the zope core but only if
Hi,
zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
one place. But there is no test case or comment about when such
a warning will occur.
I have pasted the relevant code here:
def resolve(self, dottedname):
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Shane,
Can you review and merge this changes into your
zope.pipeline branch?
I'm going to put zope.pipeline on hold until the PyCon sprints. Jim and
I need to discuss it in person; hopefully then I can understand his
opposition and the group can decide on the best
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
Hi,
zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
one place. But there is no test case or comment about when such
a warning will occur.
I
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
Hi,
zope.deprecation is used in zope.configuration *only* to turn
off deprecation warning when accessing attribute of an object in
one place. But
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 20:50 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip
Well, that docs are currently not necessarily about the zope
framework (as far as I understood what's zope framework now), but
more about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 5, 2009, at 08:24 , Christian Theune wrote:
As Dan pointed out, some of those documents are a bit more general
than
Zope Framework, but, then again, they're also more general than Zope
3.
So even for that its better to have them in
59 matches
Mail list logo
