Tres Seaver 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, and that we should thus retire zpkg
as the means for building Zope2 releases.
+1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Log message for revision 68810:
Note dropping of 'zpkg'; use a current version number.
Changed:
U Zope/branches/tseaver-retire_zpkg/doc/CHANGES.txt
U Zope/branches/tseaver-retire_zpkg/setup.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/branches/tseaver-retire_zpkg/doc/CHANGES.txt
Tres Seaver 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,
Where are the eggs, btw?
I will be ready shortly to merge this branch to the 2.9 branch, the 2.10
Tres Seaver wrote:
Since you're denoting this as a current version number, do I take it
that you're planning on changing the way Zope 2.9 and 2.10 releases are
created as well? I would consider egg-based deployment a feature; at
least it's a big enough change that I'd be worried for it to
Tres Seaver wrote:
The point is that the release tarball should generate the same
environment that the developers routinely work in; otherwise, we leave
the poor suckers who install from it stuck with whatever bugs are caused
by the difference.
Ok. I'll note that Python eggs don't fulfill
Tres Seaver wrote:
That will be good. Even after eliminating the list you provided (see
below), there is still a lot of stuff in zope.app which is irrelevant to
Zope2 (I think).
Agreed. By the way, I just compated a Zope 2.9.3 install with your
tarball. The same comparison should be done
Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Both core zope and Plone spew forth in their default state.
Zope 2.10 does? It shouldn't. Please point out the deprecation
warnings it sends.
I, like many people I
Tres Seaver wrote:
I've now done the same work on a branch for that tree:
[/home/tseaver/projects/Zope-CVS/tseaver-retire_zpkg-2.10]
$ head .svn/entries
?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8?
wc-entries
xmlns=svn:
entry
committed-rev=68857
name=
Tres Seaver wrote:
svn: URL
'svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope/branches/tseaver-retire_zpkg/lib/python/zope/app'
doesn't match existing URL
'svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Zope3/tags/Zope-3.2.1/src/zope/app' in
'lib/python/zope/app'
I may have to munge 'zope/app' manually and check it
Tres Seaver wrote:
We neeed to do a Zope3 3.2.2 release to go along with 2.9.4
Why?
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
Tres Seaver wrote:
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 to release a 2.8.8 this
weekend with the changes for the ReST fix (I already released a 2.7.9).
Note that
Hi all,
we're having a bugday for the Zope June releases this Thursday. Yes,
we know it's August. That's why we need YOUR help to get this release
out quickly.
How can you help? Look at the issue trackers at
http://www.zope.org/Collectors and search for bugs of the 'critical' or
'3.3 release'
Kris Adcock wrote:
Hiya,
My company has been using a Zope server to store some reference material, but
it has grown beyond belief, and I need to extract all the collected files
(about 1.3 terabytes!) from the Data.fs into distinct files onto a different
server.
Unfortunately, I've run
Kris Adcock wrote:
--- Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kris Adcock wrote:
I've tried going through the Undo procedure, but the idea of manually
ticking 130,000 boxes (in pages of 20) and undoing them fills me with
dread.
Hmm, this is something I don't understand. You
Andreas Jung wrote:
--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
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't have time for a discussion right now as I'm off to Germany soon.
The one thought that strikes me is that these release management notes,
when finalized, should be in some clear, findable, well-known and
maintained location. Otherwise we'll forget again. I know,
AFAIK, Stefan Hollek checked it in to demonstrate an incompatibility of
Zope 2.10 vs. 2.9. See http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/2187.
Andreas Jung wrote:
Those two tests are currently failing on the 2.10 branch (updated with
the Zope 3.3.0rc1 code). Any hints?
Andreas
---
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Log message for revision 70218:
Backport testrunner from 2.10 branch.
Changed:
_U Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/zope/
-=-
Property changes on: Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/zope
___
Name: svn:externals
Hey Christian, welcome back! :)
Christian Heimes wrote:
Lennart Regebro schrieb:
You have many good points in your list of troubles. Many of them are
resolved by using security declarations through ZCML instead. It would
be interesting to here your views on this.
In general I preferre old
Christian Heimes wrote:
Zope's security declarations have to be called with a method *name* AS
STRING. Developers are human beeings and human beeings tend to make
small errors like typos. Or they forget to change the security
declaration when they rename a method. Zope doesn't raise an error
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I think that there is a different tool for every job. Sometimes I think
Plone is the best solution, sometimes Zope 2 is the best solution.
Sometimes Zope 3is the best solution, and sometimes ZClasses are the
best solution.
Yes, you're right about different
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 9/27/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's definitely time to work on a replacement.
Yes. And here is my short vision of that. Comments are appreciated.
Have you looked at zope.app.schemacontent, Sidnei's prototype for
TTW-schemas and content based on
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
...
Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole type
thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
Usually, a type is seen as a set of objects, its type instances.
It is quite nice to be able
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 pieces of an older
release to retain features essential to you.
I see no problem in making the
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-29 01:35 +0200:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-28 14:23 +0200:
...
Why not set marker interfaces directly on the objects? That whole type
thing is unnecessary. Just use interfaces.
Usually, a type
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 9/29/06, Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
instantiated from this type.
For me, Lennart's
Andreas Jung wrote:
--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
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I do like the idea of ZClasses as a separate product.
Good! Then let's move it out of the Zope 2 trunk.
Actually I think all of Zope should be an assembly of separate products.
I would love to see multiple flavors of Zope each as an assembly of
separate products.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Types in Zope 3 are typically expressed by interfaces.
Yes, and that would most likely be the case here too. Most likely
which type and object is would be expressed by letting that object
have a specific interface. This does not make interface and type
conceptually
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-9-30 02:30 +0200:
...
You want to stick this interface to individual objects,
while Lennart proposed to stick it to a type and use
some kind of inheritance to make it effective on all objects
instantiated from this type.
But where
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-10-7 23:51 +0200:
...
I find that the introduction of classes with (multiple) inheritance
has been very economic. It was another concept but a highly fruitful
one, despite the fact that they are not so liked in Zope3 land.
I think
yegor wrote:
I installed Plone 2.5 but it seems that the issue is Zope-related, so I'm
posting it here should I go for a different mailing list?)
I suggest using a Plone users mailinglist. This is definitely the wrong
list, it's for the development OF Zope, not for the development WITH
Zope.
yuppie wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (errors=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Mon Oct 23 21:35:18 EDT 2006
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-October/006371.html
First, thanks for resuming this collected
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 contexts. However most components of
Zope 2 are heavily dependent on others.
Yes, that's true.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I don't mind making Products.Five smaller. And I don't mind making
loads of small packages called five.something either.
That said, I think it's important to make as much of zope3 work under
zope2, so any zope3 package included in the zope2 distribution should
also have
Andreas Jung 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 contexts. However most components of
Zope 2 are heavily dependent on others.
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
I was wondering why there is no easy way to register a view for an
exception in Zope 2 yet (not even in Zope 2.10!).
Because nobody has refactored Zope 2 to support this yet...
There is a product in the z3-base called FiveException:
Chris Withers wrote:
I don't know how easy this is to do, but one thing that would be
_really_ nice would be to use an existing compatible python install
rather than Zope splatting it's own in regardless.
-1
That's what Zope 3 does (it's a standard distutils installer). It makes
it hard to
Andreas Jung wrote:
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?
Tests need to do their
On 7 Jan 2007, at 20:44 , Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I added Products/PageTemplates/configure.zcml to register an
utility.
That works fine when running Zope however zopectl test won't work
properly
yuppie wrote:
Hi!
Andreas Jung wrote:
I plan to release Zope 2.10.2 in a week or so (don't nail
me to a particular date).
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
Dieter Maurer wrote:
I tried to use Zope3 events to get informed when requests start and end.
One of our modules (the interface module to jpype) requires such
a notification for reliable work. Therefore, it tried to register
the corresponding subscriptions on import of this module.
That is an
Chris Withers wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
If you are populating the CA before ZCML is fully parsed, then:
Why is the CA predicated on ZCML?!
It's not. And Stephan's Collect all registrations before executing
them! isn't actually necessary either (it's just necessary for conflict
Grig Gheorghiu wrote:
I'm trying to check out zope.interface for one of the tests I'm running
for Twisted in the Pybots project. I've been getting an error lately:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ svn co
svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.interface/trunk zope.interface
A zope.interface/buildout.cfg
A
This proposal aims at bringing Zope 2 a bit closer to Zope 3 by making
the widely used Acquisition API aware of Zope 3's __parent__ pointers.
This will alleviate the need of using Acquisition base classes in Zope 2
for every security-sensitive object, be it persistent or just a
dynamically
Daniel Nouri wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
For their upcoming versions, Zope 2 consuming platforms such as Plone
are creating standard Zope3-style Python packages while still having
Zope 2 products around. This proposal aims at unifying the deployment
of products and Python packages
Rocky Burt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-25-01 at 05:07 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I do wonder what would happen if you had both lib/python/Products/CMFCore
and Products/CMFCore, though. Would there be an explicit preference or would
Zope fail to start up with a conflict? I think I'd prefer the latter,
whit wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
This is awesome, and by that I don't mean the fact that we have a
plone buildout, but that we actually have Zope 2 recipes for
buildout. I hope they can be moved to svn.zope.org for further
development to benefit the whole
Ian Bicking wrote:
It would be a concern if, for instance, Plone started depending on
buildout recipes for installation, without plain distutils recipes. Of
course right now there are no distutils recipes for old-style Products.
So actually it's an active issue -- if buildout enables Plone to
Rob Miller wrote:
honestly, it seems to me that buildout tries to do too much.
That's ok. I often don't need the big hammer that buildout is. That's
when I tend to use workingenv (even if it's' just for trying out whether
something's easy_install'able)
it's
trying to handle both
Graziella Toutoungis wrote:
Hello,
[...]
This is the wrong list, please write to zope@zope.org with general
problems about *using* Zope.
Please don't respond to this email.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Next Zope 3 training at Camp5:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[foo]
recipe=zc.recipe.egg
eggs = egg1 egg2 ...
interpreter = mypy
extra-paths = path-to-your-instance/lib/python
scripts = mypy
This is great :) I used eggs = ${instance:eggs} to make sure it has the
same eggs as our
Chris McDonough 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
I've become indifferent.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation
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 solution. I don't want to see any new code using
zLOG.
+1 for undeprecating it -- the noise it
Dieter Maurer 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.
I fail to find an explanation *why* that is.
According to Whit, Alexander Limi
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dieter Maurer 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.
I fail to find
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 4 Feb 2007, at 12:47, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'm not quite sure it has to be part of Zope 2 as you install it. Having
it in svn.zope.org would go a long, way, though, allowing us to use
svn:externals during development and potentially fix issues ourselves as
On 5 Feb 2007, at 12:22 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
Some of the holdup is in the bylaws. The bylaws were, simply put,
rather overengineered, and we've been struggling to cut them down so
we can actually work with them. This is holding up the IP transfer.
Ok. Is there anything us mere mortals can
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Log message for revision 72754:
Raise SyntaxError when encountering invalid PythonScript headers.
Changed:
U Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/Products/PythonScripts/PythonScript.py
U
Zope/branches/2.9/lib/python/Products/PythonScripts/tests/testPythonScript.py
Tres Seaver wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Roché Compaan wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 06:55 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
Roché Compaan wrote:
I'm curious, has anybody played around with the idea of caching ZCatalog
results and if I submitted a patch to do this would it be excepted?
I quickly coded
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 04 March 2007 20:02, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
a) mentors.
It'd be great if some of the Zope core committers would volunteer to
mentor a student. This doesn't mean you will definitely end up
mentoring one, just show your willingness.
I
Christian Theune wrote:
a) I want to do the switch to ZODB 3.8 (currently trunk)
b) That needs zope.proxy as of Zope 3.4 (currently trunk)
Is there anything that would block this and if something how I can
contribute unblocking it?
The only way to really find out is to try it. Zope 3.3 and
On 7 Mar 2007, at 12:24 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 3/5/07, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) mentors.
It'd be great if some of the Zope core committers would
volunteer to
mentor a student. This doesn't mean you will definitely end up
mentoring one, just show
Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
[modified slightly from a similar proposal to zope3-dev to match Zope
2's publisher]
I'm writing up a proposal for the ZODB to make even more efficient Blob
handling possible.
This includes not copying the data from an uploaded file, but using a
`link` operation
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 3/21/07, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/21/07, Stefan H. Holek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 2.3 does not support the @decorator syntax.
My bad, I'll fix.
Done. I hadn't even properly run the tests on the 2.8 branch, which
would would also have
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Most ObjectEvents are dispatched to sublocations.
Well, the ones that deal with the object hierarchy. This mostly concerns
IObjectMovedEvents and their sub-event types (added, removed). I don't
think it makes a lot of sense to dispatch other object events.
I was
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Most ObjectEvents are dispatched to sublocations.
Well, the ones that deal with the object hierarchy. This mostly concerns
IObjectMovedEvents and their sub-event types (added, removed). I don't
think it makes a lot of sense to dispatch
whit wrote:
2 items:
1. how does everyone feel about adding the following boilerplate to all
occurences of Products/__init__.py to enable the easy creation of
Product eggs?
try:
__import__('pkg_resources').declare_namespace(__name__)
except ImportError:
from pkgutil import
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously whit wrote:
2 items:
1. how does everyone feel about adding the following boilerplate to all
occurences of Products/__init__.py to enable the easy creation of
Product eggs?
Aren't we asking people to move to using python packages instead?
Well, I
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I need a very simple app. Just 1 ZClass, an invoice object. Not even
subitems on the invoice. I want to create these ZClasses, I want a
table of these ZClasses, I want to be able to say which role gets to
create these objects, which role gets to see which fields,
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Christopher Lozinski wrote:
I need a very simple app. Just 1 ZClass, an invoice object. Not even
subitems on the invoice. I want to create these ZClasses, I want a
table of these ZClasses, I want to be able to say which role gets to
create these objects
On 19 Apr 2007, at 08:25 , Christopher Lozinski wrote:
The problem with upgrading ZClasses is that it would break the zope
security models, and the Zope Product Model.
That depends on what you by upgrading ZClasses. To make them
continue to work, simpler changes will probably suffice.
It
At the PIKTipi sprint this past weekend, Andi Zeidler, Andreas Jung and
I worked on integrating ZODB 3.8 and Zope 3.4 into the Zope 2 trunk.
Zope 3.4 has actually exploded into many eggs that are now
independently managed and released. I therefore looked into a way to
make Zope 2 dependent on
On 7 Jun 2007, at 08:45 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 6. Juni 2007 18:01:27 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the PIKTipi sprint this past weekend, Andi Zeidler, Andreas
Jung and I
worked on integrating ZODB 3.8 and Zope 3.4 into the Zope 2 trunk.
Zope
3.4 has
On 7 Jun 2007, at 10:40 , Chris Withers wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
* as newer versions of specific zope.* or ZODB packages are
released, you can individually install those or not. There'll be
no need to wait for another Zope 2 release.
I actually see this as a downside
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I wanted to share a bit of experience I just had with use of eggs in Zope2.
For a project I am working on I want to use the zope.sendmail package in
a Zope2 environment managed using buildout. I added zope.sendmail to the
eggs list in the buildout configuration and ran
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
as some of you may have noticed I worked a bit more on philikon's branch
which makes Acquisition and in return the Zope2 security machinery aware
of __parent__ pointers.
Yay, thanks Hanno!
As I won't have much time to work on this anymore, I would encourage all
of
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration branch?
If not, I'd like to see it merged, now that ZODB 3.8 has beta'ed.
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
Stefan H. Holek wrote:
Log message for revision 76597:
Collector #2307: ObjectCopiedEvent not dispatched to sublocations.
...
@@ -130,7 +131,15 @@
if OFS.interfaces.IObjectManager.providedBy(ob):
dispatchToSublocations(ob, event)
[EMAIL PROTECTED](OFS.interfaces.IItem,
On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:20 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Juni 2007 12:04:26 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues on that Zope211-3.4-integration
branch?
If not, I'd like to see it merged, now that ZODB 3.8 has beta'ed.
The only
On 20 Jun 2007, at 13:16 , Stefan H. Holek wrote:
I took my cues from how ObjectModifiedEvent is handled. I figured
copied and moved should be treated the same. Also, there is this
comment in OFS/subscribers.py:
# The following subscribers should really be defined in ZCML
# but we don't
On 21 Jun 2007, at 23:47 , Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
ah, here it is: http://svn.zope.org/?rev=76408view=rev should fix
the zclasses problem, if i'm not totally mistaken.
That change needs backporting, I think, to the ZODB 3.6 line (for
2.9)
and
On 25 Jun 2007, at 12:09 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 25. Juni 2007 10:13:44 +0200 Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
true, but i think philipp was only asking about 2.11 for the time
being. i agree the fix should
On 26 Jun 2007, at 14:56 , Tres Seaver wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 25 Jun 2007, at 12:09 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 25. Juni 2007 10:13:44 +0200 Andreas Zeidler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
true, but i think philipp
Andreas Jung wrote:
Cdoc/CHANGES.txt
Ulib/python/Products/Five/i18n.zcml
Ulib/python/Products/Five/event.zcml
Ulib/python/Products/Five/meta.zcml
Ulib/python/Products/Five/form/tests/forms.txt
Dlib/python/Products/Transience/tests/testCounters.py
U
On 28 Jun 2007, at 17:03 , Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 21 Jun 2007, at 23:47 , Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
ah, here it is: http://svn.zope.org/?rev=76408view=rev should
fix
the zclasses
Andreas Jung wrote:
now that Zope 3.4.0b1 has been tagged, I plan to release Zope 2.11.0b1
by mid-July. Objections?
Like Chris, I'd rather have one or two alphas first. Why not make an
alpha mid-July and perhaps a beta at the end of July?
--
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope
On 6 Jul 2007, at 09:59 , Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 6. Juli 2007 01:48:11 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
now that Zope 3.4.0b1 has been tagged, I plan to release Zope
2.11.0b1
by mid-July. Objections?
Like Chris, I'd rather have one or two
On 6 Jul 2007, at 16:47 , Andreas Jung wrote:
ok, I'll make
- a1 around July 18th (tag against the current trunk)
- b1 around August 8th (new 2.11 branch)
Sounds reasonable?
Sure. The b1 might even happen a week sooner if it were up to me...
___
Andreas Jung wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to
Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we
should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1
Often Zope3-related bugs are filed in the Zope 2 tracker by mistake.
Launchpad
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On 8/12/07, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to make it short: I propose to move the Zope 2 bugtracker to
Launchpad. Since the Zope 3 bugtracker works already with success on LP we
should follow with the Zope 2 bugtracker. Objections?
+1
I do wish LP gave a bit
On 12 Aug 2007, at 21:45 , Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Maybe I missed the thread but why was LP choosen over for example
Trac?
Because we don't have to maintain it or host it. I don't think we
have the amount of volunteers (feel free to convince me otherwise :)).
The latter would at least
Tres Seaver wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
perhaps the sun burned too long on my brain today but I investigated
some options for replacing DateTime with Python's datetime module. Zope
3 uses datetime and we all know that the DateTime implementation sucks.
Especially the timezone
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote at 2007-8-26 20:31 +0200:
...
Conversion between both is pretty much trivial. However I have no idea
how this would solve the DateTime problem. So what are our DateTime
problems?
- an insane constructor with a parser trying to parse almost every
date
On 27 Aug 2007, at 22:25 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-8-27 22:11 +0200:
...
In my personal opinion, we should
* use datetime for all the new stuff that we write,
* provide a convenient way to convert DateTime objects into datetime,
* create alternate APIs
On 28 Aug 2007, at 21:48 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-8-27 22:33 +0200:
...
I believe that datetime is not even importable in TTW code
and datetime objects not accessible in TTW code -- at least,
they have not been until recently...
allow_module('datetime
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote at 2007-9-9 11:58 +0200:
...
Obviously this needs a bit of rather hairy code
Indeed, as you must not define 'locale' as a request attribute
(it may hide 'locale' set otherwise) but otherwise let it behave as if
it were an
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. September 2007 12:40:04 +0100 Martin Aspeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I think there are currently several approaches doing
products-as-eggs in
the Zope 2 world - I also lost track a bit and have no idea how to
do it
Dieter Maurer wrote:
During our latest discussion to put my most important Zope2 products
into a public repository, I have promissed to publish them on
PyPI instead. Yesterday, I started work to fulfill this promiss
and carefully read the PyPI related documentation -- to find
out, that it is not
On 23 Sep 2007, at 19:05 , Dieter Maurer wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2007-9-22 19:27 +0200:
...
Dieter Maurer wrote:
...
* PyPI doesn't necessarily have to contain eggs. It's primarily a
discovery mechanism for humans. The fact that setuptools can download
packages from
201 - 300 of 436 matches
Mail list logo
