Re: [Zope-dev] Defining Zope 3.
+1 with Tres' position. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Simon Michael wrote: -1, Gary's is clearer. I think what is clear or not is very subjective. I think that at least is clear. I think it is clear that you are disregarding many people's opinions. Okay, I'll come back with a bit more rational response than my first one. Could you also tell me how I'm disregarding people's opinions in this thread? Examples? Or do you think stating my own opinions and concerns, while I'm clearly (explicitly mentioned) thinking this topic through, is tantamount to disregarding other people's opinions? Do you really think I'm in this discussion with people just to disregard their opinions? I'm trying to consider the impact of changing a well-known well-used name that carries certain expectations (different ones for different people!) to something else that was set up explicitly to have different expectations, namely the Zope Toolkit. The Zope Toolkit concept was explicitly designed to *separate* those expectations from the (vague but broad) expectations surrounding Zope 3. I spent quite a bit of time trying to work that out. Now we're a few weeks later. It is proposed instead we rename what we called Zope 3 to Zope Toolkit and tell everybody that the expectations changed. I've expressed clearly that's an interesting approach and also clearly that I have some concerns. I am -1 on pushing a Zope3 is now the Zope Toolkit message: I would rather that we *not bring up Zope3 in public again*, while still enabling those who have built apps atop the un-brand to maintain them. If somebody asks, Hey, what happened to Zope3?, we can explain briefly that the core of it is now ZTK, and that the other bits have a life of their own, but *without the un-brand*. To this end, I think we sholud remove all traces of the un-brand from prominent places on our websites, try to stay on message as a community, while re-focusing on the technical aspects of the transition (rather than the branding / perception ones). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ6LKE+gerLs4ltQ4RAkfIAKC/s1iE3sE3+fag5Tvrat6X/uM9XACfTctf EvnsuRnMvhmvoeh7JJ8L/fI= =iKI4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Uploading the Installer for Windows
Toc, toc. Is there anybody home? I'll test it for you alsolet you know how it goes. Andrew Sawyers On 2/23/07, Sidnei da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone volunteered to test and upload the Zope Installer for Windows when one was ready. I believe Chris Withers was the vict..^H^H volunteer. There's an installer ready for testing over here: http://files.enfoldsystems.com/Zope-2.10.2-Final-6947.exe Thanks! -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systemshttp://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systemshttp://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Two visions
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 10:37 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I'd like to get feedback on two possible visions for the future of Zope 2 and Zope 3. 1) Our current vision (AFAIK) is that Zope 3 will eventually replace Zope 2 - There will be lots of overlap between the Zope 2 and Zope 3 lifetimes. (Zope 2 might be supported more or less forever.) - Eventually, the gap between Zope 2 and will become very small. requiring a small leap. In this vision, Zope 3 would have to become a lot more like Zope 2, or we would lose features. -1 2) In an alternate vision, Zope 2 evolves to Zope 5. - Zope 5 will be the application server generally known as Zope. It will be backward compatible (to the same degree that Zope 2 releases are currently backward compatible with previous Zope 2 releases) with Zope 2. Zope 5 will similarly be backward compatible with Zope 3 applications built on top of the current Zope 3 application server. Note that Zope 5 will leverage Zope 3 technologies to allow a variety of configurations, including a Zope 2-like configuration with implicit acquisition and through-the-web development, and a Zope 3-like configuration that looks a lot like the current Zope 3 application server. Maybe, there will be a configuration that allows Zope 2 and Zope 3 applications to be combined to a significant degree. - Zope 3 will explode. :) For many people, Zope 3 is first a collection of technologies that can be assembled into a variety of different applications. It is second a Zope 2-like application server. I think that these folks aren't really interested in the (Zope 2-like) application server. Zope 3 will continue as a project (or projects) for creating and refining these technologies. (It would probably make sense for this activity to to have some name other than Zope. On some level, the logical name would be Z (pronounced Zed :). An argument against Z is that it would be hard to google for, but Google handles such queries quite well and I'd expect that we'd move to the top of Google Z search results fairly quickly. However, I'll leave naming decisions to experts. ;) Advantages of this vision: - Zope 2 users don't need to leave Zope 2. - Zope 3 doesn't have to reproduce all Zope 2 features. - There wouldn't be confusion about 2 Zopes. It is important that Zope 5 be backward compatible with both Zope 2 and Zope 3, although not necessarily in the same configuration. Many people are building Zope 3 applications today and they should not be penalized. Thoughts? +2 I personally think that one of the great things about what has come out of Zope 3 development: other projects can use the technologies without taking Zope 3 lock stock and barrel. I'd hate to see Zope 3 get more girth and loose future traction because it had to be fully backwards compatible with Zope 2. For those who wish to slowly migrate to using Zope 3 technologies without completely rewriting their software, evolving via Five is a fair approach. To quote a blog I'd read earlier today: Doing little things well is a step towards doing big things better. Allowing others to assist in refining the little technologies which make up Zope 3 can achieve this goal. I would fear this would be impossible if the first vision was followed. Andrew Sawyers Jim ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-2.9 r40780 make install doesn't finish, files missing from bin
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 13:47 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote: I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts. I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement. If it is, then we should make it work. Question is, is it worth delaying the release? I don't know. I think it's an important requirement; many of us have done this dance for years. The reason I'd suspect this got done by Chris M was to ease our pains we'd had to work around over time and make it easier for people coming into the Zope Community - or their support staff (i.e. Admins) I can't answer the last question, but it seems to apparent that it's important and expected behavior by lots of people in the community. If we did stay with the current situation, we'd need to cleanup the documentation so that a developer can easily reminder herself what she can do and how to do it. If it's indeed *easy* and clear, that should be ok. It just needs to work sensibly :) So many of us are used to the ./configure; make; make install dance. Jim Andrew ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-2.9 r40780 make install doesn't finish, files missing from bin
This has been my approach also. Not surprisingly, many of us worked on these processes together and have 'sanitized them' over time. :) There has always been 'another side' who either hasn't liked this procedure or the 'make' voodoo and have come up with their own, or just haven't had to do this at all. Andrew I really think there is not a single good reason for having a different experience for checkouts vs tarballs. It would even lead to major annoyance where I work right now, just to give a real life example. For us, building out a development sandbox is the same process as building out a production instance, and for development buildouts we routinely want to just substitute checkous from a different tag/branch of Zope. jens ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: Please vote about conflict errors logging
On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 15:45 +0100, Florent Guillaume wrote: So I propose another little change: have the error_log copy to event.log be the default behaviour. Today the default is off. Florent +1 A ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Please vote about conflict errors logging
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 23:00 +0100, Florent Guillaume wrote: 1. Do you want these ConflictErrors retried logs to be at level: - INFO INFO - BLATHER - DEBUG - not logged - other 2. In addition, please specify if you feel those retried ConflictErrors should have their full traceback logged? - Yes, with traceback - No, without traceback No Traceback 3. Finally, please tell us if the ConflictErrors that *can't* be retried (and are returned to the user as an error, and are also logged to the error_log) should be additionally explicitely logged to the event log, and at which level: - ERROR - not logged - other Error (Also, if you feel the logging should be different between 2.8 and 2.9, please say so.) I'll wait until Wednesday morning to collect results. Thanks, Florent Andrew ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository
On 11/24/05 8:54 AM, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: I recall a slightly different discussion I was involved in. I remember Zope 2 core developers worrying about the inclusion of Five in Zope 2.8; they were worried they'd need to maintain its codebase. I was one of these people. Since then, I've completely changed my mind; it was a pure win. - C As was I. Five has brought me and a few others I know closer to Zope 3. This is a huge win. Many of us have lots of experience to bring to the benefit of the Z3 community. As a result, I am excited to take even more strides to Z3. Phillips goal is a good one. The challenge is if there is resistance, how to smooth the bridge. Rather then Z3 developers shoot it down outright, they should provide reasonable alternatives (other then doomsday scenarios). It is a good thing to bring more developers into the Z3 community, many of us Z2 developers are hungry for this. I don't know the answer for every developer on either side of this argument, but there must be an effective compromise out there. The two groups need to work to come to that solution and not alienate one or the other or blindly shoot it down and hope it will go away. It's unreasonable to do so. Taking my ball and heading homely, Andrew ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Problems with Zope 2.8 on FreeBSD (was Re: Problems with PageTemplates on Zope 2.8)
Did you bump up the thread stack size for the python you're running Zope with? This sounds like that problem. If you search zope.org for FreeBSD - I have a note on how I fix it. Andrew -- Zope Managed Hosting Software Engineer Zope Corporation (540) 361-1700 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Morten W. Petersen Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:37 PM To: Max M Cc: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: [Zope-dev] Problems with Zope 2.8 on FreeBSD (was Re: Problems with PageTemplates on Zope 2.8) I have an application called the Issue Dealer which I'm porting to Zope 2.8. However, whenever I try to access a PageTemplate which makes use of a page template macro it just hangs and consumes all available CPU. Any ideas what could be wrong here, or how I could debug it? Does the server or the client hang? It's the client that's hanging. The first time I tested it, it was as a simple Zope instance. http://instance/manage worked fine, but accessing an Issue Dealer instance (http://instance/stuff) didn't work. Now when I try setting up a ZEO server/client version 2.8 with python 2.3.5 on FreeBSD 5.4, the server hangs even when I try to access http://instance/manage. http://instance/manage_copyright works fine however. -Morten ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Uploading Windows release 2.8b1
What happened? Too large of a file? I can up it for you otherwise, let me know and I'll check into it. Andrew -- Zope Managed Hosting Software Engineer Zope Corporation (540) 361-1700 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Theune Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:32 AM To: zope-dev@zope.org Subject: [Zope-dev] Uploading Windows release 2.8b1 Hi, the upload didn't work again. If someone could put the file located at http://amy.gocept.com/~ctheune/Zope-2.8.0-b1-win32.exe to the right place? The proxy on Zope.org caught me again. Cheers, Christian -- gocept gmbh co. kg - schalaunische str. 6 - 06366 koethen - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 3496 30 99 112 - fax +49 3496 30 99 118 - zope and plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
RE: [Zope-dev] Re: Uploading Windows release 2.8b1
I just bumped this up to 20MBs. Andrew -- Zope Managed Hosting Software Engineer Zope Corporation (540) 361-1700 Hi Christian, just tried it and got an error too: 'The request or reply is too large.' (Upload size is more than 15MB) Michael -- http://zope.org/Members/d2m http://planetzope.org ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ) ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] June Zope Bug Day: IRC correction
Chris Withers wrote: Chris Withers wrote: Where? #zope-dev on irc.zope.org That should probably be irc.freenode.net. irc.zope.org is just a cname pointing to irc.freenode.net Andrew -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: +1 for member-only posting On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:24, Tim Peters wrote: Over on the zope and zope-dev lists, there's currently agitation to make them members-only mailing lists. The point is that spam could not get thru then (unless posted by a member). What would zodb-dev members like? [...] +1 I propose this policy extends to all ZC managed community lists. Andrew Sawyers -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] test: ignore
test -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
Ken Manheimer wrote: I noticed this when it went initially went by, but didn't have time to follow up. The upshot is that there is absolutely no way *under the current arrangement* that this is going to happen. I can see a way to swing it, requiring earnest volunteer effort. Here are the details. Being the administrator of many of the zope lists (probably over ten and below twenty), i am already dismayed by the challenge of the typically thirty to one hundred held spam messages, bounces, and other effluvia i have to handle *per day*. I do not know how many of the legitimate list messages would additionally be held and require more attention (with the current mailman implementation, it takes a lot more fuss to approve a held message than to discard it), but the load is already untenable, so one more is too many. Why would we hold non-member postings for review? Why not simply outright reject them? Andrew -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
Ken Manheimer wrote: What proportion of the list traffic comes from valid members who are posting from alternate accounts? A huge percentage was - I don't know how much is making it through to the lists though. I'm hearing a lot of complaints from people either third party, seeing it in IRC or from emails off the lists. I've recently added an increased amount of header and body checks which were not being applied yesterday as well as increased spam reject features. This should help - in any event now that it's being blocked at the MTA, Mailman's load on the server has went from 2 -3 to ~.5 on the server in the last hour. Andrew On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: Ken Manheimer wrote: I noticed this when it went initially went by, but didn't have time to follow up. The upshot is that there is absolutely no way *under the current arrangement* that this is going to happen. I can see a way to swing it, requiring earnest volunteer effort. Here are the details. Being the administrator of many of the zope lists (probably over ten and below twenty), i am already dismayed by the challenge of the typically thirty to one hundred held spam messages, bounces, and other effluvia i have to handle *per day*. I do not know how many of the legitimate list messages would additionally be held and require more attention (with the current mailman implementation, it takes a lot more fuss to approve a held message than to discard it), but the load is already untenable, so one more is too many. Why would we hold non-member postings for review? Why not simply outright reject them? -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope.Com Geeks] Re: [Zope-dev] zope-dev list policies
Ken Manheimer wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Andrew Sawyers wrote: Ken Manheimer wrote: What proportion of the list traffic comes from valid members who are posting from alternate accounts? A huge percentage was - I don't know how much is making it through to the lists though. I'm hearing a lot of complaints from people either third party, seeing it in IRC or from emails off the lists. I've recently added an increased amount of header and body checks which were not being applied yesterday as well as increased spam reject features. This should help - in any event now that it's being blocked at the MTA, Mailman's load on the server has went from 2 -3 to ~.5 on the server in the last hour. Andrew Huh? I was specifically talking about the legitimate postings, valid members who are posting from alternate accounts, sounds like you're talking about spam. Yeah, I was. Misunderstood. Others will have to answer this for themselves. I've said my peace - so that's enough for me. Andrew -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Lists
The zope.org lists have been migrated to new hardware. The lists and archives are updated as of ~10 minutes prior to the DNS switch; so I expect them to be as current as I could get. I've heard of people getting resubscribed to lists which they had recently unsubscribed from. Since the old system was not being managed by us, I do not have any details as to what/why that might have happened, so if you find youself resubscribed now we appologize. This should not continue to happen and if anyone experiences further problems please let us know ASAP. Thank You, Andrew Sawyers -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope.org/cvs.zope.org/svn.zope.org server move
Dear Zope Community Members, Excuse the cross post, but this announcement is important to all. This coming Thursday, 06.17.2004 we will be moving the the zope.org website, cvs and svn services to new hardware at our Northern Va. data center. Effective 5:00pm EST the creation of accounts on the zope.org website and logging in to the zope.org website will be disabled to ensure that up to date data is migrated onto the new servers. We expect this move to take ~1 to 2 hours to complete. The zope.org TTL and secondary refresh times have been updated to 1 hour. The afternoon of the move, these times will be reduced down to 15 minutes in preparation for a smooth DNS change over when the migration is complete. Ken I'm evil, so don't mess with me Manheimer will be handling the CVS/SVN migration and will provide more details on the expected outages early next week. If anyone has questions, feel free to let us know. Thanks, Andrew Sawyers -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Zope and zope
Jim Fulton wrote: The first question is: Is it a problem to have two packages with names differing only in case? +1 A response with a positive sign (e.g. +1, +0, +2, ...) indicates agreement that this is a probelm. :) Jim Andrew -- Zope Corporation Software Engineer (540) 361-1700 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope] Re: [Zope-dev] Using 2.3.2 for Zope 2.7
I don't know about 'blessing', but I'm using it on a project currently (Python 2.3 and Zope 2.6.2) without glitches. Andrew Toby Dickenson wrote: On Friday 03 October 2003 15:33, Chris McDonough wrote: Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7 final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2. Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python 2.2/2.3 ? ___ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
