Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Feb 25 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Feb 26 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were no messages.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and
you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*. Having
another package being picked
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action,
and you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*.
David Pratt wrote:
Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your
comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking
buildout to do. I share this view.
It's not very useful to talk about a we asking buildout to do things
when there is clearly a debate and
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those functions are actually orthogonal).
The rule for the most
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those functions are actually
[Originally sent to Martin only; meant to send to the list.]
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Meanwhile, you're satisfied already with actually looking at setup.py of
the develop package and then repeating the version number *too*. It's
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
I think the term 'develop' is badly chosen. You are right if you argue while
having the meaning of 'develop' in mind. You are explaining what you think a
'develop' option should be. A 'develop' option means: I want to 'develop' on
this package, so I want it
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or
2) rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning
messages every build, or
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I
developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an
application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies
the the requirements in setup.py come in.
This thread is
Aaron Lehmann a écrit :
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2)
rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2)
rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning messages
Hey,
Thanks everybody for this discussion. I'm going to bail out now, and I
want to share some of my conclusions:
* We're going to have to live with the current 'versions/develop' story
for a while. I've started try to document the existing behavior in
buildout's doctests (faassen-develop)
On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or
2) rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I
developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an
application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies
the the requirements in
17 matches
Mail list logo
