Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-6-14 07:32 +0100:
...
Would be interested to know what other people think...
I like time based releases but I hate deprecations
for cosmetic annoyances (term stolen from Andreas).
I have the feeling that most deprecations so far
have been
Tres Seaver wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 6/14/06, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The time-based release cycle just amplifies this across many branches
and point releases, so nobody really knows which products work with
what branch/release and under what configuration some
Andreas Jung wrote:
For me, the fact that Zope 2.9.3 still emits
deprecation warnings on a fresh install (zLOG...) is a pretty bad sign.
Deprecation warning is only annoying but not a bad sign. Deprecations
are not a functional problem.
That sends a pretty bad message. It's not really
Andreas Jung wrote:
Right. As a rule we must fix any code in the Zope core that would possibly
spit out a deprecation warning caused by a deprecation warning. At least
for zLOG in Zope 2.9 we (possibly only me) were not totally consequent.
Yes, I noticed your name in svn praise ;-)
Chris
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Yes, the 6 month cycle is very short. All of a sudden we have a
situation where a whole slew of releases/branches is out there (2.7,
2.8, 2.9, 2.10, trunk)
Indeed, this seems to be purely an artifact of time-based releases. I'm
sure I'm not the only one who routinely
Chris McDonough wrote:
checkins list. Yes, I know. I know. I'm bad. But all of you have
been there before, I'm pretty sure, so I hope you can sympathize.
...and how!
And why the should the core emit a deprecation warning?
Amen.
the goal here? Removing zLOG is (at least by any sane
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Max M wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
At some point you have to make a cut to get rid of old crap. Fixing the
zLOG
issue is a straight forward approach with very little risks for the
programmer and it won't take too much time..I don't see a major problem
with
yuppie wrote:
I believe the Hippocratic Oath should be followed in subjective cases
like this. First, do no harm.
Cruft does harm. It discourages people who want to understand and
improve Zope. And it encourages people to stick to bad coding habits.
As far as methods goes, I call bullshit
Max M wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
At some point you have to make a cut to get rid of old crap. Fixing
the zLOG
issue is a straight forward approach with very little risks for the
programmer and it won't take too much time..I don't see a major
problem with that.
Except that it hits a sore
yuppie wrote:
If adding deprecation warnings for 'methods' was a mistake it was not a
simple mistake. I still believe it should be removed.
I think you're in the minority here. I suspect you could remove the
legacy thing without much problem, but it feels like methods has a
genuine need for
Lennart Regebro wrote:
So this is not a problem with deprecation period, time based releases
or anything else, then.
No, but the slew of deprecation warnings, proliferation of branches that
need to be supported (regardless of whether they're officially
production or not) and sheer amount of
Join #zope-dev on freenode.net and help make 2.10 the best Zope 2 ever! :)
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
--On 15. Juni 2006 11:29:11 +0200 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Join #zope-dev on freenode.net and help make 2.10 the best Zope 2 ever! :)
Unfortunately the email collector notification does not seem to
work...anyone to slap zope.org?
Andreas
pgpp7hSAyzVwD.pgp
Description: PGP
On 6/15/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Yeah, we all know that bugs should get fixed on all stable branches,
but that becomes less and less likely the more stable branches there
are. Time based releases seem to be making this problem much much worse.
Only because we have more
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6131
Blamelist: alecm,andreasjung,efge,faassen,jim,jinty,mgedmin,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.10 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6130
Blamelist: alecm,andreasjung,efge,faassen,jim,jinty,mgedmin,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.10 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin2.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6130
Blamelist: alecm,andreasjung,efge,faassen,jim,jinty,mgedmin,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost
Hi Chris!
Chris Withers wrote:
yuppie wrote:
I believe the Hippocratic Oath should be followed in subjective cases
like this. First, do no harm.
Cruft does harm. It discourages people who want to understand and
improve Zope. And it encourages people to stick to bad coding habits.
As far
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Zope2 development stood pretty much still for several years. We
are no picking up the slack, and yes, that means loads of rapid
changes. The alternative is stagnation and ultimately death.
Well, I must say that I enjoyed that. Being able to add new
functionality in
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
So this is not a problem with deprecation period, time based releases
or anything else, then.
No, but the slew of deprecation warnings, proliferation of branches that
need to be supported (regardless of whether they're officially
production or
Chris Withers wrote:
[snip]
Personally, I find non-time-based releases a much nicer prospect: you
only need to move to the next major version when it's ready and because
it contains big new features you really want.
Who is going to develop these big features? What's the motivation? I'm
not
On Jun 15, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
We've had two ZPT implementations, now we have to maintain only
one. We
had our own logging framework, now we can simply use Python's, etc.
These changes may seem cosmetic to the outside developer (he has to
use
different APIs),
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
We've had two ZPT implementations, now we have to maintain only one. We
had our own logging framework, now we can simply use Python's, etc.
These changes may seem cosmetic to the outside developer (he has to
On 15 Jun 2006, at 16:09, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
People will get sick of seeing the warnings, and they'll
eventually change it, but there's just no reason to *force* them to
change it on our time schedule. And if they don't, who cares?
People
who don't want
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:30 PM, yuppie wrote:
Hi Chris!
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:00 PM, yuppie wrote:
It's not that simple. registerClass has an optional 'legacy'
argument that does something quite similar. It just monkey
patches ObjectManager instead of Folder. So at
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Well, except that the actual, formal deprecation of zLOG finally made
everyone aware of the logging module and a few things like logging
levels that no one had thought about till then. So I wouldn't say the
benefit was exactly
Hi Chris!
Chris McDonough wrote:
For what it's worth, maybe there's some middle ground here. Just
because something is deprecated doesn't need it needs to have a hard
date to be removed. Why don't we just have the first use of zLOG in
each module generate a deprecation warning and just
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6153
Blamelist: dominikhuber,jim,jinty,regebro,shh,tseaver
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.10 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6152
Blamelist: dominikhuber,jim,jinty,regebro,shh,tseaver
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6158
Blamelist: alecm,shh
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Chris McDonough wrote at 2006-6-14 14:50 -0400:
...
PsycoPG-DA does, MySQLDA does, one of my products named
ZopeMailArchive does.
CCSQLMethods does (because until very recently ZSQLMethods did,
hopefully changed now).
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.10 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 6168
Blamelist: alecm,shh,tseaver
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Hi All,
Got this weird error message:
Module TAL.TALInterpreter, line 701, in translate
Module Products.PageTemplates.TALES, line 261, in translate
Module Products.Five.i18n, line 51, in translate
Module Products.PageTemplates.GlobalTranslationService, line 33, in
translate
TypeError:
33 matches
Mail list logo