Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Going back to the 3.4 stable set and being stuck at Python 2.4 would be
quite disappointing for me.
Me too, especially as I now have a Zope 2.12 project that's using lots
of interesting Python 2.5'isms ;-)
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python
Chris Withers wrote:
plohn.
___
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
On 01.05.2009 17:33 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
We would have to maintain four different major release of Zope:
2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13.
Why? I suspect most of this work is caused by plohn.
If you're speaking as a member of that community, then fine, but
that's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 1, 2009, at 17:47 , Andreas Jung wrote:
On 01.05.2009 17:33 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
We would have to maintain four different major release of Zope:
2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13.
Why? I suspect most of this work is
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Chris, don't let personal grudges get in the way of planning decisions
like this ;-)
Hey! Don't you go all good cop on me :-P
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
I'm also about -sys.maxint on these changes for Zope 2.12 as I'd like to
see 2.12 out the door as soon as possible.
Then we have a conflict of interest. My main goal for Zope 2.12 is to be
based on the Zope Toolkit 1.0 release and loose quite
On 29.04.2009 15:28 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
I'm also about -sys.maxint on these changes for Zope 2.12 as I'd like to
see 2.12 out the door as soon as possible.
Then we have a conflict of interest. My main goal for Zope 2.12 is
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 16:09, Andreas Jung li...@zopyx.com wrote:
On 29.04.2009 15:28 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
I'm also about -sys.maxint on these changes for Zope 2.12 as I'd like to
see 2.12 out the door as soon as possible.
Then we have a
On 29.04.2009 16:51 Uhr, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 16:09, Andreas Jung li...@zopyx.com wrote:
On 29.04.2009 15:28 Uhr, Chris Withers wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
I'm also about -sys.maxint on these changes for Zope
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Or, we could release 2.12 soon, and then start working on 2.13, a
version that explicitly is for people who want to move towards the
Zope Toolkit, and may not be completely backward compatible.
This would be my vote.
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Or, we could release 2.12 soon, and then start working on 2.13, a
version that explicitly is for people who want to move towards the
Zope Toolkit, and may not be completely backward compatible.
This would be my vote.
Right now the story for
My 2 cents:
Zope 2.12 will go into beta state as soon as ZODB 3.9.0
goes beta. The underlying Zope 3 packages are stable and good enough
right - I don't care much right now about having an official Zope Toolkit
Release 1.0. If this will happen soon: fine - otherwise we will stay
with the current
2009/4/27 Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com:
On 4/27/09 3:27 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:58, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu wrote:
1. The stable option also looses us support for newer Python versions.
It is only very recently that packages got full deprecation warning less
support for Python 2.5 and 2.6. With Zope 3.4 we are stuck with Python
On 28.04.2009 15:02 Uhr, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:58, Hanno Schlichting hanno...@hannosch.eu wrote:
1. The stable option also looses us support for newer Python versions.
It is only very recently that packages got full deprecation warning less
support for Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Or, we could release 2.12 soon, and then start working on 2.13, a
version that explicitly is for people who want to move towards the
Zope Toolkit, and may not be completely
Andreas Jung wrote:
I have no problem with the changes. You have my blessing if Hanno is ok
with the changes from the Plone prospective.
I'm OK with the changes from the Plone perspective.
I do however have a concern from the Zope perspective ;)
What I'm worried about is what kind of
Chris Withers wrote:
I'm also about -sys.maxint on these changes for Zope 2.12 as I'd like to
see 2.12 out the door as soon as possible.
Then we have a conflict of interest. My main goal for Zope 2.12 is to be
based on the Zope Toolkit 1.0 release and loose quite some more stuff.
That in
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are
set. Why isn't __name__ just a property that
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are
set. Why isn't __name__ just
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are
set.
On 4/27/09 3:27 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost
Now when we have eggs, can we fork the relevant modules (Publisher +
OFS?) into two versions. Zope 2 backwards compatible versions, and
versions that rely on that __parent__ is sane? Plone, and any others
that want to gradually migrate to the toolkit, could then use that
version. People who
zopyxfil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.04.2009 22:56 Uhr, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Or, we could release 2.12 soon, and then start working on 2.13, a
+1. We need an eggified, Buildout-friendly Zope 2 that's fully
compatible with Zope 2.11.
Zope 2.11???
In
Hi,
First - a quick question: can we treat __name__ and id/getId()/_setId()
as the same, always? OFS.SimpleItem has some support for letting id and
name be the same, but the link is lost once both __name__ and id are
set. Why isn't __name__ just a property that reflects self.id ?
Then, the
On 26 Apr 2009, at 16:53, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We can fix this by introducing some code in OFS (and BTreeFolder2)
that
mimics what zope.container does.
Is there any risk involved in this? It looks ok in theory, just that
we're at a4 of Zope 2.12, we should be getting wary of features.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 26.04.2009 um 18:16 schrieb Matthew Wilkes:
On 26 Apr 2009, at 16:53, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We can fix this by introducing some code in OFS (and BTreeFolder2)
that
mimics what zope.container does.
Is there any risk involved in this? It
27 matches
Mail list logo
