On Dec 13, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Michael Howitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a test section in buildout (version 1.5.2) which uses the environment
> option to get os.environ configs into the test script.
> But the environment configuration does not show up in the generated script.
>
> The recipe I use
On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Gary Poster wrote:
>>
>>> 1.3.1 has change and is released.
>>>
>
On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> 1.3.1 has change and is released.
>>
>
> On it's failing in a different way:
>
> An internal error occurred due to
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
>>
>>> zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
>>>
>>> While:
>>> Install
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>> zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
>>
>> While:
>> Installing supervisor.
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File
>> "/Us
On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> zc.recipe.egg 1.3.0 fails badly with
>
> While:
> Installing supervisor.
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/Users/ajung/sandboxes/occ/eggs/zc.buildout-1.5.0-py2.6.egg/zc/buildout/buildout.py",
> line 1784, in main
>getattr(bu
On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:38, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> Am I doing something wrong? I have a dedicated python 2.6, and run
>> python2.6 dev.py and then bin/test.
>
> I looked through the tests again, and some of the tests are clearly an
> e
On Jul 8, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> I propose the following adjustment:
>
> try:
> container = context.__parent__
> except AttributeError:
> container = ILocation(context).__parent__
+1
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
...
>> So, with that in mind I today went on to zc.buildout, trying to port
>> it to Python 3 by ripping out any usage of zope.testing. Also, the
>> standard development
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
>&g
On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
> wrote:
>> Thanks Tres and Sidnei,
>>
>> My questions were intended to go to the list anyway.
>>
>> Can we take a branch from the launchpad mirror and bind it back
>> directly at
Hi David. I'm not sure. The person who might have a better idea is Zvezdan,
who has been cc'd.
Gary
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:02 PM, David Glick wrote:
> Hello,
> In Aug. 2008 Juan Pablo Giménez asked [1] on this list about merging his
> work [2] on adding support for the authorize.net Automated
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here's this week's summary.
>
> For those of you who can't/don't participate in those meetings, there's
> the open question about how useful you consider my summaries to be.
> Please tell!
I read them and appreciate them. Thank
On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> I got tired of seeing things like
>
> /home/mg/tmp/buildout-eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6-py2.5.egg/zope/testing/testrunner/debug.py:23:
> DeprecationWarning: zope.testing.doctest is deprecated in favour of the
> Python standard library doctest m
On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 22:44, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>> I also don't know of any applications running on the other frameworks,
>>> which is why it's so empty there.
>>
>> Schoo
Yeah, I was thinking that too, as a "I don't have time to think hard about
this" little daydream.
Actually I believe you would want to subclass InterfaceClass and make your new
zope.component.Interface an instance of the new InterfaceClass and specify
zope.interface's Interface as something i
On Dec 3, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Thomas Lotze, are you happy enough with this to still help with the
>> implementation?
>
> I am indeed. This isn't the ideal solution I had hoped for, but it is a
> big step in a good direction from my point of view a
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Gary Poster wrote: [snip]
>>>> I personally think these efforts do not make the potential
>>>> consens
On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
> [snip]
>> I personally think these efforts do not make the potential consensus
>> on ``adapt`` and ``utility`` methods any less interesting: they would
>> be a concrete win for my users.
>
On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> My $.02 is here:
>
> http://www.plope.com/Members/chrism/zca_thoughts_summary
I was going to comment on your blog, even though it was separate from the
mailing list, but then I couldn't register an account, so here I am.
I agree with a dece
On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others
>> have made (Shane I think was one of several?).
>>
>> IFoo.adapt(...)
>>
>> IFoo.utility(...)
>
> I
I think I could get fully behind the following proposal that others have made
(Shane I think was one of several?).
IFoo.adapt(...)
IFoo.utility(...)
= Why? =
- This is a significant improvement in terms of being memorable, as far as I'm
concerned. It's also briefer, which is related.
- It
...from my perspective.
= Things vaguely approaching consensus =
== General ==
There's a consensus that changes to the ZCA need to be backwards compatible.
The practical definition of that varies for different people.
== Syntactic ==
=== Tuple multi-adaptation ===
Example:
IFoo((bar, baz))
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
>> You are arguing for the unification of utilities and adapters?
>
> No. I'm arguing not to conflate utilities with the singleton pattern
> or adaptation with own
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
>> To be honest, I just don't see why this whole singleton business shouldn't
>> be orthogonal to the concepts of the component architecture.
>
> Well said. If an application cares about singlet
On Dec 1, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to summarize the options I've seen appear in the discussion so far.
>
> We have the following options:
>
> 1) introduce a new method, such as "instance()" or "lookup()" on
> instance. It unifies utilities with adapter
On Dec 1, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
...
> I am also in favor of unifying adapter and utility lookup. Or at least
> creating a more normalized API.
I guess it is no surprise that I am in favor of a normalized API but against
the unification.
> On
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 22:40, Gary Poster wrote:
>> Then to the multiadapter concern I raised, all my real-world examples of
>> adapters are to adapt one object so it can be used in a certain way (to
>> integrate
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> True. For me utilities are tools. Like CMFs portal_whatever. But in
>> Zope3 even small stupid singleton objects are utilities in some cases,
>> and that is confusing for a beginner.
>
>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
>
>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>>> 3) I also think that "utility" is a bad name. Is "singleton" two letters
>>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
> Am 30.11.2009, 20:24 Uhr, schrieb Gary Poster :
>
>> 1) I very much like the idea of some helpers hanging around. However,
>> my current belief is that the factory "methods" ought to be callable
>> objec
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
...snipping here and elsewhere without further warning...
>>> Utility lookup:
>>>
>>> IFoo()
>>>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
...a good general argument, that Chris seemed to agree with and expand upon,
and that has some merit to me.
>
>> What do you think?
>
> + 1 with the following caveat:
>
> I think that method name should probably be
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Gary Poster wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
&
On Nov 27, 2009, at 6:32 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Introduction
>
>
> So now that we've had some discussion and to exit the "bikeshed" phase,
Wow. That's abrupt, for something at the root of the entire stack.
I don't think long emails are very effective, but I'
On Nov 30, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:17:41PM +0100, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Hmm, I may be missing something here, but if Foo implements IFoo, then
>>> the getAdapter lookup for it will short
On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>> If some set of ZCA APIs made it the responsibility of the *caller* to
>>> invoke the adapter with arguments would go a long way between normalizing
>>> the difference between utilities and adapters (because they wo
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm saying that utilities and adapters are different. I share
>> your/Martijn's/other people's general thoughts about merging adapters and
>> multiadapters in the interfa
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>
>>
>> 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:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Adapter:
>>
>> IFoo(x)
>
> [...]
>
>> Multiadapter:
>>
>> IFoo.multi(x, y)
>
> [...]
>
>> Utility:
>>
>> IFoo.utility()
>>
>> [or possibly IFoo() instead?]
>
> What about a simple and consistent API for all
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
> Thoughts?
FWIW, this mirrors some of the thoughts I've had, after a lot of discussions
with Launchpad/Canonical engineers about the pros and cons of the Zope
interface and component code. My OSCON presentation touched on some of these
he
> latest packaged egg
> of plone.relations still depends on zc.relationship<1.1. Thus this
> issue persists if one uses the latest plone.relations egg.
> This has been fixed on in svn, could somebody with permissions
> create a new egg?
>
> Best regards,
>
>
I had a "rethinking interfaces" talk accepted. It's about the
positives and negatives of zope.interface and zope.component, driven
primarily from the perspective and experience of the Launchpad team,
and myself in particular; and about changes that might be made or
differences we are inter
On Nov 3, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
...
>> It is an advocacy piece only in the sense that we are saying that,
>> by-and-large, we like what the packages give us, but it is more
>> challenging than that. It's an interesti
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 2009/11/3 Gary Poster :
>> I had a "rethinking interfaces" talk accepted. It's about the
>> positives and negatives of zope.interface and zope.component, driven
>> primarily from the perspective and expe
On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
> Once Bzr 2.0 comes out (in less than a month AIUI), I'll at least
> send out a link to it and point out some changes made that
> specifically address concerns raised by Zope Foundation members when
> I raised Launchpad&#x
39 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Gary Poster
> wrote:
>> The Ubuntu one should be easy to fix.
>>
>> The Windows ones may be tied up with \n \r fun. It should be
>> trivial too,
>> though I'll need to get a Windo
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This is from a note I sent yesterday to the ZTK steering group
> (Martijn,
> Christian, Jim, Stephan), proposing criteria for removing packages
> from
> the ZTK. Martijn has already updated
On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> Hi Hanno,
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Hanno Schlichting
> wrote:
>> We are down to zero-build problems for the ZTK and just one test
>> failure. This is in zope.testing in testrunner-layers-buff.txt.
>
> That smells like something
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
>>
>
>> 2) Our current arrangement, as well as many others, can be
>> accomplished
>> with a DVCS. Launchpad + Bzr definitely support this. You would
>> have a
&
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development
> that we
> currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
> repository and distributed SCMs everyone can branch everything, but
> with
> distributed
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:53 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> FWIW, we forked zope.sendmail a while back (with the intent of
> eventually merging these changes back upstream) as
> "repoze.sendmail". It does not use any thread to do queue
> processing. Instead, a separate process can be run to han
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we
>>> started
>>> investigating alternatives whi
On Sep 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Alexander J Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Alexander J Smith
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
>
Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
release add the download?
Thanks
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mail
On Sep 11, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:51AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> 3) [no] s
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> 3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
>>
>> I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate?
>
> The current
Hi all. One of the contributors to the Launchpad project has
identified a problem with zope.sendmail and thread changes in Python
>= 2.5.1. Here is his description:
"""
Description of the situation:
Prior to Python 2.5.1, the atexit handlers were executed when the
*main* thread exits. Ho
Shameless plug: try z3c.recipe.filetemplate.
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/z3c.recipe.filetemplate
. Sounds like it does what you want out of the box.
Gary
On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Encolpe Degoute wrote:
> Hello,
>
> These last days I was using collective.recipe.template and
> gocept.rec
On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Tres
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] zope.publisher 3.5 branch has
>> code/behavior not a part of subsequent releases
>
> [...]
>
>>> If I were not already behind, I would investigate to understand the
>>> Python 2.6 problem better and see what
On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> Hm. I sent this from the wrong account, so it didn't make it to the
>> zope-dev list. I'm also adding an additional bit of war story
Hm. I sent this from the wrong account, so it didn't make it to the
zope-dev list. I'm also adding an additional bit of war story at the
end.
On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> Hi Tres
>
> I made a 3.5.8 release of the zope.publisher 3.5 branch for a rea
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Gary Poster
> wrote:
>> Two teams here at Canonical just encountered the STAGGER_RETRIES
>> behavior in
>> http://svn.zope.org/zope.publisher/trunk/src/zope/publisher/http.py?rev=101538&
Two teams here at Canonical just encountered the STAGGER_RETRIES
behavior in
http://svn.zope.org/zope.publisher/trunk/src/zope/publisher/http.py?rev=101538&view=auto
. I don't see anything in tests or comments to explain it. Our
guess is that it tries to put some breathing room around re
On Jun 24, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In messages like http://www.mail-archive.com/zope3-...@zope.org/msg05964.html
> ,
> zc.async is mentioned as the solution for cron-like functionality in
> zope.
> Effectively you would not need zope2's clockserver.
>
> Reading
On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe it's time for an svn commit police squad?
> 22 .py files have tabs... and I grepped only zope.* packages.
FWIW, to state the probably obvious, other projects handle this with
varying degrees of increased control.
Some require
ate
if you are interested. I obviously learned a lot from your design.
I wanted to get that release out before replying.
>
> Previously Gary Poster wrote:
>> Thanks Uli, Wichert, and Hanno for working out the legal bits! And
>> thanks to Martijn and Martin for the other rep
Hi Markus.
Stephan Richter and Paul Cardune are the people I would expect to
manage this package. I expect they'll get back to you soonish. On
freenode #zope3-dev they are srichter and pcardune, IIRC.
The feature and the diff look reasonable to me. Normally we want
tests in our diffs, bu
Thanks Uli, Wichert, and Hanno for working out the legal bits! And
thanks to Martijn and Martin for the other replies.
On Friday I had moved to z3c.recipe.filetemplate, for the reasons I
had described then. Philipp said I could run with that package.
However, I'd prefer to work with a mor
I'm concerned about the state of the zc.buildout template recipes. I
want one. I want some one-off files, specific to a certain project,
for which writing a standalone recipe feels very heavy.
Here are the template recipes I found:
collective.recipe.template (Wichert Akkerman)
iw.recipe.tem
On Apr 15, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Here are a list of things I have seen that you may mean when you say
> "Zope 3". I'm sure I missed several:
>
> 1. Whatever is included in the Zope 3 tgz that you download.
>
> 2. All the packages included in the Zope 3 KGS. (Should be the sa
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Sadly, I suspect none of the tools are as advanced as TortoiseSVN.
Which
is a real shame :-( Perforce maybe? ;-)
Fair enough that bzr didn't take your fancy, but FWIW, did you try
TortoiseBzr? That has received
On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Pieters wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:53, Wichert Akkerman
>> wrote:
Note that we are now up to svn 1.6.
>>> Which still does not fix this, and is preventing people from
>>> upgrading
>>> to the 1.5 client, and thus from u
On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> This looks like a poor man's enum. I'ld prefer to have a proper enum
> like thing.
Seems a little different to me.
For what it is worth, though, if you do want an enum in zope.schema,
Canonical has lazr.enum: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/laz
On Apr 3, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Chris Rossi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Gary Poster
> wrote:
>
> How would that be a win for you (or anybody else) over just putting
> the constant in the interfaces module?
>
> Standard practice seems to favor putt
On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Chris Rossi wrote:
> Hello,
Hi Chris.
>
> I was wondering if the Zope collective had given any consideration
> to allowing constants to be defined in interfaces. To be clear,
> these are constant values that make up the protocol defined by the
> interface.
.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> I'd like to report back on the progress that Bzr/Launchpad has made
>> addressing concerns we heard since I last brought up Canonical'
On Apr 2, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Hey All,
...
> The other option would be to follow Python and move to Mercurial, but
> that has the same problems for me as with Bzr (no decent gui tools,
> less
> mature, etc) although it's a toolset I'll have to learn at some point
> anyway
On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Sidnei da Silva wrote:
>> Hi Martijn,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> One question is what launchpad project we should use.
>>>
>>> The current launchpad is for "Zope 3". The steering group isn't
>>> ab
On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Who's around at PyCon? If so, when/where are we meeting up?
Arriving Thursday evening, leaving following Thursday afternoon. I'm
starting at the Hyatt, going to the Crowne Plaza on Monday.
Email is maybe the best public way to g
On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> One question is what launchpad project we should use.
>>
>> The current launchpad is for "Zope 3". The steering group isn't about
>> Zope 3. It's about a whole bun
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that
>> this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency.
>
> Cool. Committed.
>
>>> If we do that, then
On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Gary Poster wrote:
>>
>>>> Hopefully. Do we know that zc.relationship 1.1 works with both ZODB
>>>> versions?
>>> That would be a significant point of its existence, so I
On Mar 16, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Martijn Faassen :
>>> There is a compromise I am willing to take. If package zope.bar
>>> depends on a
>>> *new feature* or *feature change* in zope.foo 1.3.x, then it
>>> should specify
>>> the version. In other words specifying
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> Thanks for being so helpful!
Happy to.
>>> What's the difference between 1.1.1 and 2.0dev on pypi?
>>
>> I intended that 1.1.1 would simply make the absolutely minimal
>> changes
>> necessary for you to be able to use the 1.1 b
On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
>> zc.relationship 2.0 trunk is now essentially a wrapping of
>> zc.relation
>> code for backwards compatibility.
>
> I see. But 2.0dev on pypi isn't?
>
> What's the story behind zc.relation and the evolution of
> zc.relationship?
On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
>>>
>>>
On Mar 16, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I *think* this is a bug in zc.relationship, but I'm not quite sure.
>
> I'm using ZODB3 3.8.1 (to get BLOB support) and trying to install
> plone.app.relations, which depends on zc.relationship 1.0.2. In
> particular, it subclasses zc.r
On Mar 9, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> Hi zope developers!
>
> As you may know, python 3 introduced the concept of annotations for
> callable objects. That annotations store information about arguments
> and return values, which is kinda nice language feature that will
> allow us to
On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/6 Tres Seaver :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Laurence Rowe wrote:
>>> [snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
>>>
>>> One reason that isn't used is that apparent
On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Thanks Gary for sketching our the zc.async usecase. Note that zc.async
> isn't in the Zope Framework at this point in time so it wouldn't be
> directly affected by this policy, but it's still a useful usecase of
> course.
Right
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
> These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
> single dependency structure into a number of "virtual" packages that
> each can have a s
On Mar 5, 2009, at 6:38 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>
> And I am personally interested if the Zope 3 app server is something
> that's
> dying in favour for other projects (Plone/Grok) or is actively used.
Not clear on what you mean by the "app server".
If you mean zope.publisher, no, I don'
On Mar 1, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> There's been some discussion recently about separating the interfaces
> in zope.publisher from the implementations to facilitate other
> implementations.
>
> I think it would be great to standardize request and response APIs.
> I'd love to see thi
On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Gary Poster schrieb:
>
>>> Index: src/zc/dict/configure.zcml
>>> ===
>>> --- src/zc/dict/configure.zcml (.../trunk) (revision 0)
&
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
>> My mild counter proposal was this.
>>
>> - The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start "Zope"
>> projects
>>
>> - Hopefully
n't
agree, that's fine. Practically, it means I support what you are
trying to do (and in fact I would tend towards your camp in my
proposed panarchy), if from a slightly different perspective.
>
> Gary Poster wrote:
>> Moreover, if you are willing to step up and declare
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
...
> And so far I haven't heard any better ideas than
> what Martijn is proposing (no, leaving the status quo, deny there is a
> problem and steer by majority is not a counter proposal in my view).
> It may be that the idea needs some tweaking,
Thank you for the huge effort you expended on this, Martijn.
You are right, with Jim taking a rest from his much-appreciated past
years as leader, no one is in a position to guide the "Zope" name. We
do have community leaders, such as yourself, but they are guiding
other names at the moment
[Thomas asked me to review his zc.dict branch a while ago.]
Hi Thomas. Thank you for this work. It looks great. I do have
several comments below (from an abbreviated diff against the current
trunk).
> Index: buildout.cfg
> =
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
