Previously Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 13:27, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
But you can use a lot of the Zope Toolkit with Zope 2.10, which is an
enormous benefit. If that was not possible a lot of the things people
want to do with Plone would not be possible.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 09:55, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
No, I need to use some later versions of some packages than included in
Zope 2.10 to be able to use things like z3c.form and dexterity.
Well, mixing versions and using versions of packages that differ
several years in
Hey,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'd be happy with that kind of policy.
Maybe you can help Sebastien Douche document the existing infrastructure
in the zopetoolkit website. It just has to be a page with a few
paragraphs so we won't keep *forgetting* that this exists and people can
find out about
On Tuesday 05 May 2009, Chris McDonough wrote:
Were this some other project, I'd ask the Plone folks or some other group
that cares about Zope packages under 2.4 to set up a buildbot that tested
the ZTK under Python 2.4. Then I'd ask the same folks to to pay
attention to the buildbot output
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Personally I don't care if the ZTK doesn't officially support Python 2.4
anymore, as long as nobody will try to actively remove Python 2.4
support. For my part I'd be happy to take care of the BBB
Tres Seaver wrote:
The burden of proof *is* the work you just signed up the preserve
2.4 group for: monitoring the packages they care about for things
which break under 2.4, and proposing 2.4-compatible fixes.
Sure. That's different to saying officially that ZTK does not support
Python 2.4,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
because
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit drops Python 2.4 support,
it will effectively render it inaccessible to Plone users for the next
12-18
Previously Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit drops Python 2.4 support,
it will effectively render it inaccessible
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit drops Python 2.4 support,
it will effectively render it inaccessible to Plone users
On Tuesday 05 May 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Since I haven't seen such arguments besides the Plone 3.x related ones,
I will amend the zope toolkit decisions about this.
We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit drops
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
But you can use a lot of the Zope Toolkit with Zope 2.10, which is an
enormous benefit.
No, you can't, as far as I can tell. You'd have to remove Zope 3
entirely from Zope 2.10, and Plone relies on Zope 3, so this sounds
unfeasible. The burden of evidence is on
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
But you can use a lot of the Zope Toolkit with Zope 2.10, which is an
enormous benefit.
No, you can't, as far as I can tell. You'd have to remove Zope 3
entirely from Zope 2.10, and Plone relies on Zope 3, so this sounds
unfeasible.
Stephan Richter wrote:
Plone is using z3c.form. We are currently in the process of releasing
z3c.form
2.0, which has a massive amount of new features, which are very useful. As a
z3c.form developer I want to stay compatible with the current Plone release,
because (a) the code gets tested
Martijn Faassen wrote:
As I pointed out, it is effectively inaccessible for Plone users anyway,
as Zope 3 is already installed. You *cannot* mix Zope Toolkit and Zope 3
libraries just like that and expect anything to work.
Why not? We upgrade Zope 3.3 packages to 3.4+ all the time to access
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
I do think that we should care a lot about the Plone user base. Right now it
is by far the largest sub-community we have.
I care about the Plone user base, but would you really have said: okay,
we should not move to Python 2.5 for Zope 3.5, because people
Hey,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
But you can use a lot of the Zope Toolkit with Zope 2.10, which is an
enormous benefit.
No, you can't, as far as I can tell. You'd have to remove Zope 3
entirely from Zope 2.10, and Plone relies on Zope
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Martin Aspeli
optilude+li...@gmail.comoptilude%2bli...@gmail.com
wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Can you expand on this argument, because I don't understand it. Zope
2.10 doesn't stop working because Zope 2.12 no longer supports Python
2.4. And you are not
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
As I pointed out, it is effectively inaccessible for Plone users anyway,
as Zope 3 is already installed. You *cannot* mix Zope Toolkit and Zope 3
libraries just like that and expect anything to work.
Why not? We upgrade Zope 3.3 packages to
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
because ensuring
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
This is a component developed in the context of the Zope Toolkit (or at
least post-Zope 3.4). It depends on zope.container, also new. We
released a backwards compatible zope.app.container (not in the Toolkit)
which relies on zope.container now for its
Martijn Faassen wrote:
What is the date that
you would feel comfortable about giving up Python 2.5 compatibility in
Zope Toolkit packages? I'm not leaving this thread without at least
*some* decision about this. :)
Oops, I meant of course giving up Python 2.4 compatibility. Giving up
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
What is the date that
you would feel comfortable about giving up Python 2.5 compatibility in
Zope Toolkit packages? I'm not leaving this thread without at least
*some* decision about this. :)
Oops, I meant of course giving up Python 2.4
Hey,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
Given those dates the most commonly used Plone version will be based on
Python 2.4 up until end of next year by the looks of it.
What about implementing the dropping of Python 2.4 compatibility in
september, then? To give you guys a bit more time?
Martijn Faassen wrote:
So I see two responses for Plone developers:
* they know that they need new versions of zope.app.container and
zope.app.component too and require people to upgrade those too. This
might work fairly well, but does require the upgrade of more than just a
*few*
On 5/5/09 11:16 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
Given those dates the most commonly used Plone version will be based on
Python 2.4 up until end of next year by the looks of it.
What about implementing the dropping of Python 2.4 compatibility in
september,
Am Dienstag 05 Mai 2009 16:46:03 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 05 Mai 2009 16:46:03 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
We've had some more discussions about this and the Plone release
schedule. The upshot is that if Zope 3/Toolkit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
Plone is using z3c.form. We are currently in the process of releasing
z3c.form
2.0, which has a massive amount of new features, which are very useful. As a
z3c.form developer I want to stay
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
As a side note, we just started the community discussion about moving at
least to Zope 2.11 / 3.4 for Plone in a release by the end of this year.
This should take away some of the burden with Zope 3.3, but will not
change the Python 2.4 situation.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
As a side note, we just started the community discussion about moving at
least to Zope 2.11 / 3.4 for Plone in a release by the end of this year.
This should take away some of
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Zope 2.12 with its many changes is seen as too risky to introduce into
our current stable series or into any release that aims to be released
as final by the end of this year.
For what value of risky? If you are that
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 13:27, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
But you can use a lot of the Zope Toolkit with Zope 2.10, which is an
enormous benefit. If that was not possible a lot of the things people
want to do with Plone would not be possible.
Let's be clear here: Do you mean that
Am Tue, 05 May 2009 16:22:44 +0200 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
[...]
I care about the Plone user base, but would you really have said: okay,
we should not move to Python 2.5 for Zope 3.5, because people on Plone
which is still based on Zope 3.3 may want to use bits from Zope 3.5?
Unfortunately
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
because ensuring Python 2.4
Hey,
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the reverse,
because ensuring Python 2.4 compatibility is an additional burden for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
In order to get to a conclusion:
I haven't seen convincing arguments yet *not* to drop the Python 2.4 for
new releases of the Zope Toolkit libraries.
I'd like to phrase the debate in those terms instead of the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
Python 2.5 (and preferably 2.6), not Python 2.4
On 27.04.2009 16:44 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
Python 2.5 (and
On 27.04.2009 16:48 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
Andreas Jung wrote:
What would be disappointing?
To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
It may be that some (many?) packages won't work with Zope 2.10, but if
we get the kind of dependency isolation we're talking about, I'd wager
that quite a few packages would work
Martijn Faassen wrote:
What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
Python 2.5 (and preferably 2.6), not Python 2.4 anymore.
On 27.04.2009 17:07 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
What would be disappointing?
To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
It may be that some (many?) packages won't work with Zope 2.10, but if
we get the kind of dependency isolation we're
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
What would be disappointing?
To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
It may be that some (many?) packages won't work with Zope 2.10, but if
we get the kind of dependency isolation we're talking about, I'd wager
that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The Plone 3.x series will stay on Python 2.4 for a long time yet, so
this would be very disappointing. I can understand it if the maintenance
burden becomes large, or if there are compelling features of 2.5/2.6
that we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The Plone 3.x series will stay on Python 2.4 for a long time yet, so
this would be very disappointing. I can understand it if the maintenance
burden becomes large, or if there are compelling features of
Andreas Jung wrote:
On 27.04.2009 17:07 Uhr, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
What would be disappointing?
To be unable to use new packages from an updated Zope Toolkit.
It may be that some (many?) packages won't work with Zope 2.10, but if
we get the kind of dependency
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The Plone 3.x series will stay on Python 2.4 for a long time yet, so
this would be very disappointing. I can understand it if the maintenance
burden becomes large, or if there are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Thinking further on this: there is actually not much shiny about the
ZTK: it is going to be equivalent to a cut-down, dependency-stripped,
bbb-cruft-sanded version of the packages already shipping with
Am Montag 27 April 2009 16:44:17 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hi there,
What do people feel about dropping Python 2.4 support in the Zope
Toolkit? I.e. new releases of packages in the Zope Toolkit (handwave
vaguely as we *still* don't have a canonical list) only have to work in
Python 2.5 (and
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Thinking further on this: there is actually not much shiny about the
ZTK: it is going to be equivalent to a cut-down, dependency-stripped,
bbb-cruft-sanded version of the packages
Hey,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
It may well be that people (even I myself) use e.g. zope.interfaces or some
other package in some Zope related or unrelated product where it is necessary
due to some other dependencies to maintain Python 2.4
54 matches
Mail list logo
