--On 5. Februar 2007 01:10:37 -0800 Rohit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hi aj,
i am trying to access mywebsite.com/manage, but i dont remenber admin
password of root manage section.
Is there any way to recover it.
rohit
Please read the replies you got carefully.
-a
pgpONxyTreIcu.pgp
--On 4. Februar 2007 18:12:52 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-2-3 08:47 +0100:
...
* my code uses 2 blank indentation rather than the usual 4 blank
(to make it more readable and easier to maintain for me)
The source would have
--On 4. Februar 2007 18:39:22 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Feb 2007, at 18:27, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that we have the same issue with ZopeVersionControl, which is
currently only in CVS. An import of that
--On 4. Februar 2007 18:44:38 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 4. Februar 2007 18:39:22 +0100 Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Feb 2007, at 18:27, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Note that we have the same issue
--On 4. Februar 2007 19:24:09 -0500 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyone else should think about how to deal with this issue...I'm too
much biased :-)
- -1 on reformatting code, especially if we are talking about putting it
in
--On 2. Februar 2007 22:53:50 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But anyway, all I can do is register my concern, you're gonna do
whatever you do. ;-)
I am on your side, Chris.
But, I fear, we will not be heard...
One last remark. You all are highly recognized members of
--On 2. Februar 2007 15:09:53 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
0, for keeping zLOG for the time being...
-1, for undeprecating it. Using Python's logging module should remain
the only recommended
--On 2. Februar 2007 22:36:37 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Whit (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) reported that AdvancedQuery
is going to ship with Plone3 and that packaging would be easier for them
if AdvancedQuery were part of the Zope 2 distribution.
According to Whit, Alexander
--On 2. Februar 2007 22:53:50 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There's a good deal of code using it that we just don't see because
it's internal-only. When the API disappears, making people revisit
that code is particularly pointless; it's makework. OTOH, if the API
is not
--On 2. Februar 2007 10:01:58 -0800 Rohit Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hi all,
i have my website in zope 2.6.4 and i have forgotton UserId(admin) and
Password of root direcrorty of zope.
please tell me Is there any way to recover admin password ? or is there
any default UID password
--On 1. Februar 2007 11:01:56 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How many people would get indignant if I checked in a fix that
undeprecated zLOG? Removing the API seems silly, since its just a
wrapper around the logging module now anyway.
-0. We could make zLOG available as
--On 1. Februar 2007 12:31:12 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. Februar 2007 11:01:56 -0500 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How many people would get indignant if I checked in a fix that
undeprecated zLOG
are highly welcome.
You can find further information about the Zope conference here:
http://www.zope.de/8-dzug-tagung
Regards,
Andreas Jung
Assistant Chairman DZUG e.V.
--
ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany
Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Phone
Hi,
although make test reports no errors for the trunk/2.10 branch I get the
following errors when running zopectl test. Any ideas?
Andreas
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope2/trunk/lib/python/Testing/ZopeTestCase/profiler.py,
line 88, in
suxmac2:~/sandboxes/Zope/Zope ajung$ bin/zopectl test -t Products.Five
Hi,
I encounter some strange problems with the testrunner (testing the Zope 2
trunk):
Running tests via: /opt/python-2.4.4/bin/python
/Users/ajung_data/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/bin/test.py -v --config-file
--On 10. Januar 2007 18:28:42 +0100 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
The Zope 2.10 branch still uses Five 1.5.1. There are a few changes on
the Five 1.5 branch (including a security fix) which should become
part of Zope 2.10.2.
I
Hi,
I added Products/PageTemplates/configure.zcml to register an utility.
That works fine when running Zope however zopectl test won't work
properly anymore because the utility registration does not seem to happen
when
running the tests. Bug or feature?
Andreas
pgpB6Sn9gS6El.pgp
Hi,
I think it would be time to support SOAP out-of-the-box in some way in Zope
2. XMLRPC is still a useful functionality but the whole world speak of
web-services and Zope should support building web-services at least on the
SOAP level. I am sure that would bring back some more attention to
Hi,
I plan to release Zope 2.10.2 in a week or so (don't nail
me to a particular date). This will be a beta release because
it contains several ZPT changes (as discussed earlier on the list)
that must/should be tested. In addition I will merge my latest changes
(the
--On 7. Januar 2007 14:48:43 +0100 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll stitch the Five 1.5 branch HEAD directly
into the Zope 2.10 branch (without using svn externals) and Five trunk
HEAD into the Zope trunk. This would mean that from now on Five 1.5 and
1.6 are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 29. Dezember 2006 11:25:28 +0100 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas,
The changes are not backward compatible, apparently.
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/cmf-tests/2006-December/003656.html
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
as mentioned in an earlier I was working on several encoding and webdav
issues related to the Zope 3 ZPT integration in Zope 2.10. I backported
the changes to the 2.10 branch.
The changes include an in-place migration of all ZopePageTemplate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 28. Dezember 2006 20:43:34 +0100 Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung schrieb:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
as mentioned in an earlier I was working on several encoding and webdav
issues related
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 22. Dezember 2006 15:55:48 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has 2 major disadvantages:
- It is ours. :) We are bearing the burden of maintaining it.
This is offset by the fact that it hasn't required much maintenance.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 17. Dezember 2006 18:40:03 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is dangerous, because a page template may be called without being
the main driver for a request; the response encoding should be used,
if already set, rather
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I've created a branch
svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/ajung-zpt-encoding-fixes
that should fix several encoding and webdav issues that unfortunately were
discovered before the final 2.10 release.
What has changed?
Until Zope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- --On 17. Dezember 2006 12:26:26 -0500 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A ZPT has now something as an output_encoding. When you create a ZPT
through the ZMI you'll be asked about the encoding (which is utf8 by
default). The pt_render()
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Zope 2.9 and Zope 2.10 currently show up with unreleased version inside
the control panel. App/version_txt.py tries to read the file
lib/python/Zope2/version_txt. This file is usually created by
the 'makefile'. The makefile of Zope 2.9 create
I am planning to release 2.10.1 and 2.9.6 early next week (likely on TUE).
Cheers,
Andrfeas
pgpk6KYrMGVxe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or
--On 17. November 2006 16:05:02 + Chris Withers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I am planning to release 2.10.1 and 2.9.6 early next week (likely on
TUE).
I'll hopefully be checking in today, but please can you wait until I've
checked in a fix for #2212?
Go, go, go
--On 31. Oktober 2006 02:56:39 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
What are our benefits from a Z2 Eggification. Eggification is basically
about packaging and distribution of components with little dependencies
in order to re-use them in other
--On 30. Oktober 2006 00:01:33 +0100 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* It is unclear to me at this point what Zope 2's egg story will be. I
*hope* that 2.11 will get the same egg story as the Zope 3.4 that ships
with it does, though noone has talked about eggifying Zope
--On 29. Oktober 2006 10:06:42 +0100 yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oops! Sorry! I did not mean to cause any confusion:
- AFAICT the 2.10 branch points already to the 3.3.0 tag.
Right.
However Philipp pointed out that the Zope 2 trunk uses the Zope 3 trunk
right now. I pointed the
--On 28. Oktober 2006 23:50:36 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OMG, why are we using the 3.3 branch HEAD on the 2.10 branch??? This is
how Stephan's fix got pulled into Zope 2 automatically and *automatically
broke* Zope 2. It also broke Five trunk for some reason
--On 19. Oktober 2006 15:03:43 -0300 Sidnei da Silva
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:43:22PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
| Most of the active Zope developers do *not* run Zope on Windows, which
| is why there are no Windows binaries for recent Zope versions. We do
| have
--On 9. Oktober 2006 12:19:22 -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't know about should be, but it /is/ related ;-) I had job-related
reasons before to make at least minimal ongoing efforts toward keeping the
Zope test suites happy on Windows, and that in turn meant I kept many full
--On 9. Oktober 2006 19:11:55 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would not recommend anyone to over-use multiple inheritance as it's
been done in Zope 2.
I am a strong favorite of (multiple) inheritance and use it excessively.
I have the feeling that it makes me very
Who is currently in charge or who feels responsible for the Windows builds?
Andreas
pgpmsG0FzZojG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML
to
Philipp von Weiterhausen for his continuous and outstanding work in
the Zope 2 *and* Zope 3 world.
--
Andreas Jung
pgp1LMD9bRULr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
--On 2. Oktober 2006 10:24:33 -0700 Christopher Lozinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do like the idea of ZClasses as a separate product.
If we make ZClasses a separate product, does that mean we can get our
own mailing list for ZClasses. Maybe a separate web site, wiki, etc?
I doubt
Hi all,
while working on the Zope trunk I figured out that the trunk contains
svn:externals both to Zope 3 tags and Zope 3 branches. This mixture is
insane. I propose the following for the future:
- the svn:externals on the trunk should point to the latest release
branches (Zope 3, ZODB
--On 29. September 2006 02:23:13 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Also the thread that ZClass (re)distribution code will be removed
need not worry you too much. Fortunately, Zope is open source
and you can simply combine the new release with
--On 27. September 2006 12:42:23 -0400 Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found a thread (from March 2006) discussing the future of zclasses, but
i could not determine if a 'final' decision had been made.
According to Changes.txt for Zope 2.10.0:
ZClasses are deprecated and should no
FYI: Zope 2.9.5 will be released this weekend.
Cheers,
Andreas
--
ZOPYX Ltd. Co. KG - Charlottenstr. 37/1 - 72070 Tübingen - Germany
Web: www.zopyx.com - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Phone +49 - 7071 - 793376
E-Publishing, Python, Zope Plone development, Consulting
pgpkH1iQzVU1J.pgp
--On 27. September 2006 13:47:26 -0400 Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... i don't suppose anyone has an 'automagical' utility that instantly
transforms zclasses to python classes, and then changes all dtml/external
method usage do they? ...didn't think so ;-)
Also I don't think so. Just
--On 27. September 2006 17:05:37 -0700 Christopher Lozinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the risk of going down in history (and Google Searches) as the man
who supports ZClasses, I think that someone deserves to come to their
defense.
Not really. We've had these discussion in the past
--On 27. September 2006 15:09:13 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
...
From a 'robustness' and 'sleep-better-at-nite' perspective I would
rather spend the time making sure the application is rock-solid (by
replacing the zclasses once and for all) and not have to
--On 28. September 2006 06:32:32 +0200 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 27. September 2006 15:09:13 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
...
From a 'robustness' and 'sleep-better-at-nite' perspective I would
rather spend the time making sure
--On 27. September 2006 22:13:58 -0700 Christopher Lozinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
ZClasses don't get better from writing long postings.
Ah, yes but I can write much faster than I can code. What am I doing on
this list!?! All I have to do is to motivate someone
--On 22. September 2006 20:15:01 +0200 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 9/18/06, Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is a blocker IMO as it breaks FTP for a whole class of
virtual hosting scenarios. No, I don't know how to fix, maybe Lennart?
Yeah, I think so.
Those two tests are currently failing on the 2.10 branch (updated with the
Zope 3.3.0rc1 code). Any hints?
Andreas
---
Error in test testSubfolderInsideOutVirtualHosting
(webdav.tests.testPUT_factory.TestPUTFactory)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
--On 13. September 2006 20:12:50 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-13 11:05 +0200:
Over the last couple of days we've been discussing Zope's new release
cycle and the release management. I would like to sum up what seems to
be the gist
--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
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
--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
--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 11. September 2006 19:26:03 -0300 Sidnei da Silva
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
--On 4. September 2006 09:59:29 -0230 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-09 at 14:25 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 4. September 2006 09:43:07 -0230 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, I've learned to change my habits. I'm sure you've heard this a
million times
--On 1. September 2006 02:54:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have a Zope product that relies heavily on a ZCatalog to search for
objects within a folder matching certain criteria. The ZCatalog
frequently becomes corrupt, and on searching the catalog, the catalog
gives me key errors.
--On 29. August 2006 18:37:45 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Unlike you, I prefer when the browser waits until Zope
has come up over me having to reload manually until it
finally is ready...
The branch Andreas just merged leaves the fast-bind option on
--On 29. August 2006 18:50:43 +0200 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2006-8-28 20:14 +0200:
On 28 Aug 2006, at 19:19, Andreas Jung wrote:
Some time ago the following patch was proposed to control the timing
for opening the socket ports upon startup:
http
Some time ago the following patch was proposed to control the timing
for opening the socket ports upon startup:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2005-November/025709.html
I propose to adapt the patch for Zope 2.11 since it is pretty useful
especially when you deal with loadbalancers and
--On 29. August 2006 00:03:18 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Announcement
I'm pleased to announce that the final 1.4 version of the Zope
PluggableAuthenticationService product is now available at:
*me loud thinking*:
Hi,
All svn:externals on the trunk and the 2.10 are now using tags instead of
fixed revision numbers. Revision numbers tell you nothing about what is
actually behind the revision number unless you perform several manual
operations to obtain the required information. Tags are much more readable
--On 22. Juli 2006 15:34:01 +0200 Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, pagetemplate files are another thing. They have to deal with
the lack of charset information of a filesystem file and what they
do once they load the data is even another thing.
Even filesystem pagetemplates
--On 22. Juli 2006 16:17:09 +0200 Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
huh?..even on the file system a pt file is encoded using some encoding.
For an XML pagetemplate file the encoding is clearly defined through
the BOM (if available) and/or the XML preamble. So the most reliable
solution
--On 20. Juli 2006 13:09:37 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've downloaded the latested tar ball fro Zope Zope-2.9.4-final.tgz,
unpacked it and try to build/install it on SuSE Linux 9.2 with Python
2.4.3
/usr/src/packages/BUILD/Zope-2.9.4-final # ./configure
Configuring Zope
--On 14. Juli 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one
week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment
--On 17. Juli 2006 16:32:08 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The subject line says it all really ;-)
I've had problems when it's an encoded string, but that seems to be what
is stored when you save a ZPT via the ZMI or WebDAV...
ZPT in pre-Zope 2.10 knows nothing about
--On 17. Juli 2006 16:55:42 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I've had problems when it's an encoded string, but that seems to be what
is stored when you save a ZPT via the ZMI or WebDAV...
ZPT in pre-Zope 2.10 knows nothing about unicode...it can
--On 15. Juli 2006 15:55:42 -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Tim]
I used tags for ZODB until I gave in to complaints about that, and
switched to using revision numbers. The real complaint about using a
tagged external is that when the tag changes, SVN isn't smart enough
to do an
--On 14. Juli 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one
week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Even sooner would be fine with me. I plan
--On 15. Juli 2006 15:21:20 -0400 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things people complain about sometimes astonish me -- just as the
things I complain about sometimes astonish others :-)
I used tags for ZODB until I gave in to complaints about that, and
switched to using revision
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week
(likely next Thu or Fri).
Andreas
pgpqAxZg6JrTS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**
--On 8. Juli 2006 07:45:01 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 7. Juli 2006 11:03:06 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should do a 2.9.4 release to incorporate the recent hot
fix.
This is easy for me to say
--On 9. Juli 2006 12:29:24 +0200 Willi Langenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
@Tres: what is the reason to keep the 'raw' code in docutils? I am in
favor to remove it and replace it with a NotImplementedError exception
(same as for the the 'include' code). The related tests (for
--On 9. Juli 2006 10:10:53 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that when we found out about the threat
last fall, we didn't check all of the places in Zope where we were using
reST. You might say that this was because the person who did the hot
fix didn't
--On 9. Juli 2006 15:22:18 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've written some tests (checked in on the trunk). They test the 'raw'
and 'include' directives
Great! Maybe we can add a similar set for the 'fmt=restructured-text'
in DTML.
Jup, but I won't the able to this over the
--On 8. Juli 2006 07:45:01 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 1:11 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 7. Juli 2006 11:03:06 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should do a 2.9.4 release to incorporate the recent hot
fix.
This is easy for me to say
--On 8. Juli 2006 07:35:04 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
We neeed to do a Zope3 3.2.2 release to go along with 2.9.4
Two reasons:
- Better release management for Zope2: we
On Jul 8, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 8. Juli 2006 07:45:01 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only if there is no other option. Tres' patch seems to resolve this
issue and with further testing there is no need to remove the
functionality.
Seems isn't good enough
--On 8. Juli 2006 09:53:47 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you aren't listening.
I am listening very well.
Tres came up with this sledge hammer because he has no confidence
in people's willingness to test and implement this feature properly.
I am fine with the
--On 8. Juli 2006 14:37:06 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
...
You seem to be the only one championing TTW reST?
I am only champion against crude removal of features and against
and a
shortsighted preception.
I'm for
--On 8. Juli 2006 14:42:31 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This can happen all the time. A problem in the release process does
not justify the removal of a feature until we tried our best to
solve the problem. Use the sledge hammer as a last resort.
The problem in the release
--On 8. Juli 2006 15:05:21 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this applies here as well.
1. ZClasses are not a security threat. reST is. That's a huge difference.
Being a security thread or not ...how will you prove that a module X is a
thread or not? Without source code
--On 7. Juli 2006 11:03:06 -0400 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should do a 2.9.4 release to incorporate the recent hot fix.
This is easy for me to say, since I won't be doing it. :)
Because this recent fix actually fixed the same problem that the
previous hot fix was
--On 5. Juli 2006 18:56:25 +0200 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone opposed to me removing the stupid:
_getattr = getattr
_none = None
marker = _marker
local namespace optimizations that are found in
unrestrictedTraverse?
I am pretty sure that
--On 5. Juli 2006 19:11:16 +0200 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Jul 2006, at 19:05, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 5. Juli 2006 18:56:25 +0200 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is anyone opposed to me removing the stupid:
_getattr = getattr
_none
--On 5. Juli 2006 16:45:21 -0300 Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 07:21:29PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
| Does that mean you're for or against it?
|
|
| For (of course) :-)
It has been demonstrated in other lists that global lookups are most
of the time
--On 28. Juni 2006 13:56:58 +0200 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has this change been discussed?
I don't agree with it. Unicode strings aren't byte strings. File and
Image should only work with byte strings.
Code dealing with them should always know and assume that they use str.
--On 26. Juni 2006 11:25:05 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
It's dead from a maintenance point of view. If you still want to
maintain it, be our guest. But you yourself said that maintaining too
many branches is madness.
My point is that
--On 25. Juni 2006 16:32:04 +0200 Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This, BTW, breaks CMF 1.5 on Zope 2.9. Not sure I/you should care though
;-)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /home/stefan/autotest/temp/python24-zope29-cmf15/Products/
CMFActionIcons/__init__.py, line
Thanks a lot for your work!
--On 24. Juni 2006 09:40:36 -0400 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remaining TODOs:
- I would like to have a few more folks try out working with the
tarball, which I have uploaded to zope.org:
--On 22. Juni 2006 11:01:21 -0400 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/22/06, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that the extra flexibility which zpkg is intended to provide
(dependency-based subset distributions, primarily) would be better
served by moving Zope to use eggs,
--On 19. Juni 2006 16:25:32 +0200 Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I for one, is NOT interested in backporting fixed in Five trunk to
both Five 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5, which is what are the current
versions of Five if we say that Zope 2.8 and 2.7 should be still
supported after
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we
currently have 7 branches to watch out for.
Yes, but in most cases a fix only affects only Zope 2 or Zope 3. So
we are back to 3.
-aj
--
ZOPYX
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:35:48 -0400 Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:30:58PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 6/18/06, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, I'd like some way to easily know when a release is no longer
maintained. i.e., what's the X in the
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:46:27 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we
currently have 7 branches to watch out for.
Yes
--On 16. Juni 2006 09:12:36 +0100 Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Even numbered releases are feature add releases:
2.12.0 - okay, lets start adding features
2.12.1 - whoops, fixed bug x
2.12.2 - added feature y
2.12.3 - whoops, fixed bug z
2.12.0 - added feature z
2.14.1 - whoops,
--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
501 - 600 of 1148 matches
Mail list logo
