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: 7607
Blamelist:
adamg,andreasjung,baijum,ctheune,fdrake,flindner,flox,jim,jinty,jukart,mgedmin,poster,shh,tseaver
BUILD FAILED: failed
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: 7608
Blamelist:
adamg,andreasjung,baijum,ctheune,flindner,flox,jim,jukart,poster,tseaver
BUILD FAILED: failed svn
sincerely,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2006, at 13:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going to
confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use
for what.
I've heard from my major customer but also from
Hi.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 13:06:05 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going to
confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use for
what.
I've
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going to confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use for what.
I've heard from my major customer but also from other ppl. IN December
we would have *three*
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 07:00:08AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
| Can we get a new release? Some important bugs have been fixed since
| 2.9.4 in July, including issue #2155.
|
|
|
| Afaik there is one fix for an important problem pending. If it is available
| we'll get a new release.
Can you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2006, at 14:44, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Another point with this whole half-yr release cycle: we're going
to confuse
more and more professional users about which Zope version to use
for what.
I've heard from my major customer but also
--On 12. September 2006 16:55:31 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally I think we should just release the trunk every six months
(with a list of known bugs) and that be it. (I'm speaking of Zope 3
here, I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Zope 2 ecosystem to
Andreas Jung wrote:
I am thinking since one hour about how to reply to Benji's proposal. It's
not much acceptable. Major release have to be planned to a certain degree
and must be tested (as good as we can) - means we must have alpha and beta
releases.
I wasn't proposing we do away with
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:56, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi all,
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would
make sense
to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?! If
we want to stick with the
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2006-9-12 14:44 +0200:
...
The current CHANGES.txt from the trunk just lists one new feature (added
by myself). That's does not deserve a major release.
It's the nature of time-based releases, though. If nobody does anything
in 6 months, does that mean we won't have a
Hi all,
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make sense
to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?! If we want
to stick with the half-yr cycles, we need to schedule the next release
for around March/April next yr. Thoughts?
Andreas
Andreas Jung wrote:
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make
sense to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?!
Is the reasoning here that since a release cycle has taken 9 months, so
should the next? I'm not convinced expanding the release cycle
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would make
sense to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?!
Is the reasoning here that since a release cycle
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes, doing a
new release in 3 months shouldn't be a problem, as after all, we've
already fixed those bugs this time around. :)
--On 12. September 2006 13:06:05 +0200 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes, doing a
new release in 3 months
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi all,
since we are three month late with the current releas, it would
make sense
to reschedule Zope 2.11/3.4 for July (or was it June) next yr?! If
we want to stick with the half-yr cycles, we need to schedule the
next release
for
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 13:06:05 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 12. September 2006 12:28:10 +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, if the main thing holding up *this* release is bugfixes,
doing a
new
Benji York wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
What do you think about a 9 month release cycle?
If we can't manage a 6 month cycle, 9 months is the longest release
cycle I think is acceptable.
Agreed. I'd like to avoid longer than 9 months too.
Personally I think we should just release
These errors are *also* due to
ZODB.tests.testZODB.checkResetCachesAPI. The cache reset appears to
leave the Application object and/or transactions in a borked state.
All is well when I suppress checkResetCachesAPI:
$ python2.4 test.py -q -m '!^(ZEO|zope[.]app[.])' -t '!
20 matches
Mail list logo
