Hello,
* Marius Gedminas [2013-02-05 17:56]:
> The mailing list archive contains a lot of advice. (If this were a wiki
> page, I'd add links to the relevant emails). What I'm trying to do
> here is to provide a concrete example of the porting pattern discovered
> by others (especially Lennart R
ing* in that space -- we just don't know what, yet. ;)
What functionality did you have in mind that the ZTK might grow?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com · Software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · Forsterstraße 29 · 06112 Halle (Saale) · Germany
http://gocept.com · Tel
* Lennart Regebro [2012-08-19 13:01]:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Legally, both are disallowed unless there's some proof (written
>> statement etc) from the code author that he assigns ownership of the
>> patch or the contents of that pull request to the contribut
* Tres Seaver [2012-06-30 20:02]:
> I have completed the work needed to make 'persistent' distributable
> as a standalone package. The effort (begun almost four years ago!)
> includes the following highlights:
>
> I would like to release a '4.0.0' version of the package, and switch
> the ZODB tru
* Tres Seaver [2012-06-28 00:04]:
> I've done with the porting / test cleanup effort on this branch:
> svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.component/tseaver-test_cleanup
> Highlights of the changes in this branch, targeting a 4.0 release:
> - Added PyPy and Python 3.2 support (tested by tox):
* Tres Seaver [2012-04-05 22:36]:
> Having merged the 'tseaver-better_unittests' branch to the zope.interface
> trunk last Friday, I now have a new branch ready for merging:
>
> http://svn.zope.org/zope.interface/branches/tseaver-no_2to3
>
> The branch excises the use of the 'lib2to3' module and
* Tres Seaver [2012-03-26 23:38]:
> I've (finally!) finished my work to get zope.interface to 100% unit test
> coverage without relying on doctests:
That's an impressive feat, congratulations!
> In addition to minimizing "Zope-iness", providing full coverage using
> small, descriptively-named un
* David Glick [2012-02-19 22:56]:
> On 2/16/12 11:55 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> So you say that if I add
>> entry_points={
>> 'zest.releaser.releaser.after_checkout': [
>> 'zest_pocompile = zest.pocompile.compile:compile_in_tag',
>> ],
>>
so forth (not to mention buildout integration) seems not
as advanced as we've come to know. What do people use here, what are
your experiences and ideas?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · email/jabber: w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06
* Stephan Richter [2011-12-05 09:16]:
> On Monday, December 05, 2011 12:43:35 PM Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > So we decided to solve our most immediate needs (that are not taken
> > care of by plone.testing's stacking solution of the global registry),
> > namely te
/focus=26484
[2] http://svn.zope.org/zope.component/branches/wosc-test-stacking/
http://svn.zope.org/zope.interface/branches/wosc-test-stacking/
[3] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/gocept.zcapatch
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · email/jabber: w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg
* Chris McDonough [2011-12-05 04:02]:
> ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.configuration/branches/chrism-dictactions
>
> I want to be able to associate a new value ("introspectables") with each
> ZCML configuration action
>
> On the zope.configuration trunk (and in all past releases), each ZCML
>
* Tres Seaver [2011-11-22 22:46]:
> On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
>> While the Zope Foundation deliberates on version control, I think
>> it's likely that development will continue using Git and Github.
>
> Please don't try to jump the gun on the process here [...]
> It is not appro
v to a backward-compatible branch of
> zope.publisher (no longer the trunk).
Ah. Right, that makes sense. 3.12.x then?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · email/jabber: w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocep
* Zope tests summarizer [2011-11-18 02:00]:
> [2]FAILED ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit
>https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052798.html
> Module: zope.publisher.tests.test_testing
>
> File
> "/home/ccomb/ztk1.0dev-slave/Python2.4.6-Linux-64bit/build/src/
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2011-10-28 08:43]:
> * Benji York [2011-10-26 16:42]:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring
>> wrote:
>>> I've added an assertion helper to zope.testbrowser that provides
>>> ``assertEllipsis``, which is ve
* Benji York [2011-10-26 16:42]:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> I've added an assertion helper to zope.testbrowser that provides
>> ``assertEllipsis``, which is very helpful when using Testbrowser with
>> unittest.TestCase (instead o
"
For convenience, if no ``actual`` value is provided,
``self.browser.contents`` is used.
I'd like to cut a release of zope.testbrowser, if nobody has any
objections against my doing so. There are also unreleased changelog
entries about handleErrors and WSGI, which look fine to m
* Chris McDonough [2011-09-08 05:21]:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:01 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > Yes, I like the idea of a "fresh start" (or at least "proper clean
> > up") quite a bit. And I'd definitely be up for writing (new)
> > doc
* Chris McDonough [2011-09-06 20:06]:
> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 12:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Chris McDonough [2011-09-01 04:27]:
> > > It wouldn't be the end of the world to have the global registry and the
> > > global API live in zope.registry, bu
't see where that would come from. As far as I understand it,
hooks.setSite wouldn't be in zope.registry.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel
* Chris McDonough [2011-08-30 03:51]:
> On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 08:47 +0200, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> My interpretation of your suggestion is that maybe that "zope.component"
> end up as what "zope.registry" is now. But I don't think preserving the
> name
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-30 09:25]:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > My understanding is that from a client's perspective these two are
> > equivalent: if you want the foo functionality for zope.component, you
> > have to depend on zo
ope.configuration which depends on
> zope.configmachine in a branch:
Splitting zope.configuration into core mechanics and ZCML support
makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm not too hot about the "zope.configmachine" name, because it's all
mechanics and not much intention
.component. That would have to change with my idea, and that's not
bw compatible. Right.
I have to think this over (at least) once more.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com · software development
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
Hello Charlie,
* Charlie Clark [2011-08-26 11:17]:
> Am 26.08.2011, 09:51 Uhr, schrieb Wolfgang Schnerring :
> > However, what's important to me is that we try to make packages
> > cohesive, and that we try to make integration between packages
> > understandable.
t, I guess.)
However, my main driving point here is coherent package boundaries,
and as said elsewhere in this thread, I think that the core of
zope.component comprises more than just the Registry class, namely the
(hookable) getSiteManager protocol and probably zope.event integration
-- and I'
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-26 07:35]:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
> > > stripping zope.component to its core would be backwards incompatible now.
> >
> > Why? zope.component already uses extras_
* Jim Fulton [2011-08-25 15:24]:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> So I'd like to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
>> extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
>> shell of integration and miscellan
to propose to do the split the other way around: Not
extract the core into something else and leave only a hollowed-out
shell of integration and miscellany stuff behind, but rather tighten
zope.component to its core and move the optional integration bits out
of it, into separate packages.
Wh
Hi,
is this the right place to ask stuff about fanstatic?
Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to have a proper look at
fanstatic (yet!), but I've just been reading about SASS and
CoffeeScript, which are preprocessors/compilers for CSS and
JavaScript. So I wondered whether it is within fan
Hello,
* Martin Aspeli [2011-04-04 18:52]:
> On 4 April 2011 17:30, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> So, how can we proceed here? Should I (and Thomas) try to get a
>> proof-of-concept implementation of this based on plone.testing? Or should
>> we think about what it t
Hi,
it seems to me this has stalled somewhat, so I wanted to ask what
people's conclusions are.
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2011-03-26 13:41]:
> * Martin Aspeli [2011-03-26 11:22]:
>> On 26 March 2011 08:11, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> I don't think a fixture of &qu
* Christian Theune [2011-03-30 13:18]:
> On 03/30/2011 07:12 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Martijn Pieters [2011-03-29 20:59]:
> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:16, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> >>>> ...and just dump the .tgz sdists in that folder.
> >>>
really rather not duct-tape this... Alright, then I'll try and get
it into running shape and bug people to run it. And unfortunately the
code looks like it needs some work before it can be deployed properly.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
go
* Martijn Pieters [2011-03-29 20:59]:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:16, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> ...and just dump the .tgz sdists in that folder.
>> Well the problem is that it's not always so simple.
>> For me a release process is preferably a single command or a single
>> click on a button.
>
> B
Hello,
* Sebastien Douche [2011-03-28 13:26]:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 15:18, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> An honest counter question: Why not use zope.testrunner? What
>> advantages does py.test offer?
>
> On the technical side, I don't know. But from my point of
Hello,
* Jim Fulton [2011-03-28 10:04]:
> More generally, I'd love to see us adopt another test runner so that
> we can stop maintianing zope.testrunner. When it was written at
> the turn of the century, there weren't good alternatives. Personally,
> I think maintaining it is boring.
I agree,
Hello,
* Martin Aspeli [2011-03-27 16:13]:
> On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet wrote:
> > The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some
> > points that are quite cool IMHO: [...]
I agree wholeheartedly with what Martin has said about py.test vs.
zope.testrunner.
> > - L
flamewar:) Is there a compelling alternative to
zope.testrunner that would make it worthwile to think about either
generalizing the fixture support or even migrating away from
zope.testrunner?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 0611
Hello,
* Martin Aspeli [2011-03-26 11:22]:
> On 26 March 2011 08:11, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > * Martin Aspeli [2011-03-25 13:58]:
> Please also take my word for it when I say that copying the whole
> registry is non-trivial and would rely on brittle ZCA internals. I
>
3:17, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring
> > wrote:
> > > we realized that just squeezing in a new registry and bending its
> > > bases to the previously active one is not enough for full isolation,
> > > since this do
take a few months until we have something of substance.
So if there are people who want to pitch in, that'd be great. I
definitely could write up a more detailed plan and maybe even
formulate smaller chunks so we could go at this with more people.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@goce
it, but I don't
know when I get enough round toits to make it happen.
Wolfgang
[1] http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/browser/Sandbox/ctheune/testsummarizer
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 34
* Tres Seaver [2011-03-21 16:56]:
> Too many never-resolve failures in our buildbots makes their output just
> noise: the amount of effort required to diagnose the cause of a failure
> seems to have no payoff if we don't get them each cleared up.
On a tangentially-related note, what happened to
* Tres Seaver [2011-03-22 14:18]:
> On 03/22/2011 03:59 AM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> And please please kick the guilty one's a**, not the buildbot maintainer's.
>> It does not make much sense to disable tests just because they fail.
>
> Leaving the packages as "permanently failing" is obviously not
Hello Brian,
it's taken a while, but I finally had a chance to review your branch(es).
* Brian Sutherland [2011-02-12 18:57]:
>> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:32:11AM +0100, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> >> I'd prefer if we treated this as two separate st
Hi,
sorry I'm replying this late. I've been busy, then sick, then busy
again, so I'm afraid this has got pushed low on my stack of stuff...
* Brian Sutherland [2011-02-02 11:15]:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:32:11AM +0100, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> * Brian Suthe
* Wichert Akkerman [2011-01-31 09:46]:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:02:35AM +0100, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> So I'm curious: What are the differences bewteen WebTest and
>> wsgi_intercept? Is one preferable to the other?
>
> If I remember correctly WebTest wraps th
* Brian Sutherland [2011-01-30 16:04]:
> I've finally finished refactoring my WebTest/testbrowser branches,
> basically doing this:
>
> - Integrate with WebTest. zope.testbrowser.webtest.Browser is a new
> Browser implementation that uses webtest.TestApp to drive a WSGI
> applicat
* "Roger" [2010-11-22 14:30]:
> Probably an option like "--skip-part omelette" whould be a nice feature for
> buildout.
IIRC, when the parts are originally specified on separate lines
base.cfg:
[buildout]
parts = like
this
omelette
#not: parts = like this
you can do this:
buil
Hello,
* Jan-Jaap Driessen [2010-10-14 19:19]:
> The httplib.HTTPConnection API changed from python2.6 to python2.7.
> These changes are reflected in the handleErrors property of
> zope.testbrowser.browser.Browser - it is no longer possible to pass a
> boolean into the request headers.
Thanks fo
* Jan-Wijbrand Kolman [2010-10-06 13:39]:
> On 10/6/10 12:49 PM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> * Jan-Jaap Driessen [2010-10-05 18:09]:
>>> Version 0.12.2 of z3c.recipe.compattest is not compatible with recent
>>> versions of it's dependencies zc.buildout (v1.5.1)
* Jan-Jaap Driessen [2010-10-05 18:09]:
> Version 0.12.2 of z3c.recipe.compattest is not compatible with recent
> versions of it's dependencies zc.buildout (v1.5.1), zc.recipe.egg
> (v1.3.2) and z3c.recipe.scripts. I fixed this in revision 117253.
> Is it OK with you to drop compatibility with zc.
* Wichert Akkerman [2010-07-20 19:28]:
> On 2010-7-20 18:15, Christian Theune wrote:
>> At least, WRT this bug, I don't think it's a good idea to ask explicitly
>> for bad requests to go to the application as the test layer should model
>> real server behaviour as closely as possible. And again it
Hello,
I've stubmled upon an issue in zc.table, it can't deal with spaces in
column names when sorting (since it uses space as the field separator
to pass the sort_on information). I don't have time to look into this
right now, but I'd like not to forget it.
Is there someplace on Launchpad where
* Christian Theune [2010-05-28 09:31]:
> I just noticed that running ctags-exuberant with the option
> '--python-kinds=-i' improves the usefulness of the vi tag file for me a lot.
Note that this feature was introduced in exuberant ctags version 5.8,
which may or may not be included in your favou
* Jim Fulton [2010-04-20 20:35]:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> And here is another interesting experiment:
>> svn+ssh://rege...@svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.testing/branches/regebro-doctest-patching
>> It replaces the custom doctest.py with monkey-patches.
>>
>> Ben
* Christian Theune [2010-03-31 17:16]:
> we decided to keep going with the meetings, so I'd be happy to see you
> guys next week in #zope.
I'm all in favor, it seems to me the meetings really help in moving things
along.
> For those of you who can't/don't participate in those meetings, there's
* Martijn Faassen [2010-01-22 22:27]:
> This is to announce my withdrawal from the Zope Toolkit steering group.
I'm saddened to hear this. I feel that many if not all of the things you
were trying to set in motion in our community are desperately needed.
I'm sorry to hear that you have been worn
* Martijn Faassen [2009-12-17 17:48]:
> * Thomas Lotze :
> > zope.interface [should be] completely unaware of any particular uses
> > of interfaces
>
> Why is it a problem that the zope.interface package gains knowledge
> about adaptation (which it always had, anyway) and utility lookup?
This i
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2009-12-07 08:53]:
>>> The minimal reproduction recipe to see the error is this:
>>>
>>> class Slotted(object):
>>> __slots__ = ('__provides__')
>>>
>>> zope.component.provideAdapter(
>>
* Shane Hathaway [2009-12-03 11:44]:
> Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> The minimal reproduction recipe to see the error is this:
>>
>> class Slotted(object):
>> __slots__ = ('__provides__')
>>
>> zope.component.pr
* Lennart Regebro [2009-12-06 21:14]:
> Time had therefore come to zope.testing. Why
> zope.testing? Because most components in zope.* uses zc.buildout, and
> zc.buildouts tests uses zope.testing. But of course we here have a
> bootstrapping problem, zope.testing of course also uses buildout.
Whe
Hello,
I've stumbled upon a wrinkly edge case (bug?) in zope.component.
What I was trying to do is register an AbsoluteURL adapter for
lovely.remotetask.processor.ProcessorRequest objects, and since they
don't implement a specific interface, I thought I'd use the class
itself as the required comp
* Martijn Faassen [2009-11-27 12:32]:
> Are people okay with the proposed semantics?
+1, I think making these disappear into the language as much as possible
is a Good Thing(tm).
> Would people be okay with such an upgrade path? Any better ideas?
Yes, I'm okay with it. I do think we should take
* On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> > What about a simple and consistent API for all components including
> > utilities, adapters and multiadapters:
> >
> > IFoo()
> > IFoo(x)
> > IFoo(x, y)
I quite like the simplicity of this spelling, so I want to be sure
*why* it must be ruled
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-12 20:56]:
> This seems heavier than needed. Also, if someone extends this,
> they're going to get an awful lot of sections that might have names
> that conflict with names in their buildout. I do like the fact that
> the versions section is reusable. :)
>
> Here's an alter
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-12 11:52]:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>>* Jim Fulton [2009-08-12 01:36]:
>>> In playing with this today, I'm inclined to think that it would be
>>> simpler to use a list of packages in an option to specify t
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-12 01:36]:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> - The versions specified in the controlled-packages.cfg don't seem to
>> be honored except for the package being tested. For example,
>> ZODB3-3.9.0b2 is used for test-kgs-ZODB3, but 3.9.0b5 is used for
>> eve
* Fabio Tranchitella [2009-08-07 11:46]:
> * 2009-08-07 11:42, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>
> http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/zope.release/trunk/releases/controlled-packages.cfg
> IMHO the KGS testing should be done using the controlled-packages.cfg and
> not versions, beca
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-07 12:39]:
> 2009/8/7 Fabio Tranchitella :
>> * 2009-08-07 12:28, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>> How to do you specify the projects to be tested? Does every project in
>>> versions get tested? If so, how do you specify versions for projects that
>>> you don't want to run tests for bu
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-07 06:01]:
> How to do you specify the projects to be tested? Does every project
> in versions get tested? If so, how do you specify versions for
> projects that you don't want to run tests for but do want to fix the
> version of.
With z3c.recipe.compattest, to build the li
* Jim Fulton [2009-08-02 18:34]:
> 2. Some of the tests only pass if run separately, due to test
> interactions. Presumably, this means that other tests aren't cleaning
> up after themselves. I think we need a standard automated way to run
> each package's tests separately. I think some folks ar
* Andreas Jung [2009-08-03 20:21]:
> On 03.08.09 20:15, Chris McDonough wrote:
>> On 8/3/09 1:07 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>> Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:48:24PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
> the doctests for zope.index 3.5.2 - as used in Zope 2.12 - fail badly:
>>>
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2009-07-23 08:32]:
> * Christian Theune [2009-07-04 13:33]:
>> I took the Zope 3.4 KGS, removed the obvious packages that do not belong
>> to the ZTK out of the list and created a home for the master list that
>> defines which packages belon
* Benji York [2009-07-24 08:02]:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > Log message for revision 102202:
> > when a test module does not define a test_suite, first try to load
> > any unittest.TestCase descendants in it before complaining it doe
* Christian Theune [2009-07-04 13:33]:
> I took the Zope 3.4 KGS, removed the obvious packages that do not belong
> to the ZTK out of the list and created a home for the master list that
> defines which packages belong to the ZTK.
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/packages.html
>
> So, if y
* Tres Seaver [2009-06-30 20:41]:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> I should know this, but I don't. What is the recommended way to test
>> changes to core ZTK packages to mitigate the risk that changes affect
>> other packages? Is there a page somewhere with instructions?
>>
>> I tried using using zop
Hello,
* Sidnei da Silva [2009-06-19 14:26]:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> $ svn log repos/project/trunk/feature.txt
>>
>> r9 | wosc | 2009-06-18 17:11:46 +0200 (Thu,
Hi there,
* Sidnei da Silva [2009-06-18 14:28]:
> > I'm asking because I noticed that basically all SVN->DVCS conversion
> > tools (hg convert, git-svn, bzr svn-import, svn2bzr, svn-fast-export.py,
> > svn-all-fast-export.cpp) do not convert the history properly, more
> > precisely, history that
* Sebastien Douche [2009-06-18 01:34]:
> This is a first attempt to build an Mercurial mirror :
> http://hg.zope.mirrors.securactive.org/
How did you convert the repository?
I'm asking because I noticed that basically all SVN->DVCS conversion
tools (hg convert, git-svn, bzr svn-import, svn2bzr,
* Sebastien Douche [2009-06-16 14:15]:
Hello,
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 08:00, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> http://zope.buildbot.securactive.org/waterfall
>> (the ZTK docs mention only the first two. Why?)
> Because nobody had this server on the list ;).
I've added
t depends on (only if those are ZTK
packages, of course, else use the according released version), and run
X's tests.
Is this covered by one of these buildbot installations? If not, is
there something I could do to help make that come true?
Thanks,
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocep
Hello,
I'm trying to understand how we are using the bug tracker.
I noticed that on Launchpad right now there are both umbrella projects
such as "Zope2" and "Zope3", and individual projects such as
"zope.app.form" and "zope.testing" -- but the list of those
subprojects is very far from comprehens
* Jim Fulton [2009-06-09 11:29]:
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> I've stumbled over this by accident, but it seems that
>> getPositionalArguments() in zope.publisher.base.BaseRequest
>> always returns an empty value (at least, there are no
Hello,
* Stephan Richter [2009-06-09 15:51]:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> To make browsers update their caches of resources immediately when the
>> resource changes, the absolute URLs of resources can now be made to
>> contain a hash of the resou
* Stephan Richter [2009-06-09 10:02]:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > I've stumbled over this by accident, but it seems that
> > getPositionalArguments() in zope.publisher.base.BaseRequest
> > always returns an empty value (at least, there ar
Hello,
I've stumbled over this by accident, but it seems that
getPositionalArguments() in zope.publisher.base.BaseRequest
always returns an empty value (at least, there are no tests in which
it has a non-empty value), and it is also not overridden by any of the
request subclasses in zope.publisher
Hello,
I've recently fixed two bugs in zope.testing that I find annoying on
an almost daily basis (commandline option -1 doesn't work and readline
is broken in pdb).
Could someone review the changes on the trunk and cut a release of
zope.testing?
Thanks,
Wolfgang
* Fred Drake [2009-05-16 14:09]:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> Looks good so far. Could someone do a release of zc.recipe.cmmi
>> (or grant 'wosc' pypi access so I can do it myself)?
>
> Done.
Thanks! I've just cut the 1.
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2009-03-24 16:01]:
> * Wolfgang Schnerring [2009-03-24 10:26]:
>> I'd like to extend zc.recipe.cmmi to support shared build directories.
>
> Implemented in r98334. I'll use this locally over the next few days, and will
> then try to push out a
* Wolfgang Schnerring [2009-03-24 10:26]:
> I'd like to extend zc.recipe.cmmi to support shared build directories.
Implemented in r98334. I'll use this locally over the next few days, and will
then try to push out a release if it proves stable.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S
arameters, environment variables)
b) perform the cmmi in ${buildout:download-cache}/cmmi/build/,
if that directory is not present yet. (Probably needs a little thought
about how to differentiate between "present and has a complete build"
and "present but we errored out")
Any t
g a test
in the first place when I updated that browserDefault()-method. Sorry...
We just (r97680) finally wrote the test and fixed the typo.
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 34
-- marked as deprecated since
2004, but no pointer what the replacement should be.
What's going on here?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 12298
review the branch and check what's missing for it
to be merged to the trunk?
Thanks,
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 ·
Hello,
> On Tuesday 10 February 2009, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> > I'd like to introduce this to z3c.form as well (see attached patch). Would
> > it be alright with you for me to commit this to trunk (to then go into the
> > release)?
* Stephan Richter [2009-02-11 03
d patch). Would it be
alright with you for me to commit this to trunk (to then go into the release)?
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Schnerring · w...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 122988
Hello,
we are holding a mini sprint at Marijn Faassen's place this week with
the main goal of reducing dependencies between Zope packages.
One result of this effort is that now the non-ZMI parts of
zope.app.container have been factored out into zope.container, and
only the ZMI-related bits (zope.a
100 matches
Mail list logo
