In this case, the answer is clear to me. :)
We should fix the offending Z3 code to match the interface.
Similarly, we should fix the uses of get_transaction.
Jim
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm merging ZODB 3.4 into Zope on a branch. As Tres noted earlier in
a checkin comment, a test failure results,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
[snip]
get_transaction() is more troublesome than _just_ that, alas: there
are about 160 instances of it across the stitched-in lib/python/zope,
and Products/Five, code. This causes lots of new deprecation warnings
when running the tests. These are easy
[Tim Peters]
...
get_transaction() is more troublesome than _just_ that, alas: there
are about 160 instances of it across the stitched-in lib/python/zope,
and Products/Five, code. This causes lots of new deprecation warnings
when running the tests. These are easy to repair with 1-2 hours
[Tim Peters]
...
Suggestion: I make a new copy of
Zope3/tags/ZopeX3-3.0.0-Zope-2.8-pr1/src/zope
stitch that into Zope trunk (change the lib/python svn:externals to
point to the new copy), do all the get_transaction() edits there, and
repair the IDataManager glitch there too. This
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
[snip]
get_transaction() is more troublesome than _just_ that, alas: there
are about 160 instances of it across the stitched-in lib/python/zope,
and Products/Five, code. This causes lots of new deprecation warnings
when running the
Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim Peters]
...
get_transaction() is more troublesome than _just_ that, alas: there
are about 160 instances of it across the stitched-in lib/python/zope,
and Products/Five, code. This causes lots of new deprecation warnings
when running the tests. These are easy to repair
Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim Peters]
...
Suggestion: I make a new copy of
Zope3/tags/ZopeX3-3.0.0-Zope-2.8-pr1/src/zope
stitch that into Zope trunk (change the lib/python svn:externals to
point to the new copy), do all the get_transaction() edits there, and
repair the IDataManager glitch there too.
[Martijn Faassen, on deprecation warnings]
Thanks; I haven't seen those warnings yet as I don't think ZODB 3.4
quite got merged into Zope 2.8 trunk yet.
Not even close yet. I'm doing the 3,4 integration work on
Zope/branches/tim-merge-zodb34
and I'm not merging anything into the trunk
Zope trunk is using ZODB 3.4 now. It's been switched to use
svn:externals to stitch in the 9 ZODB directories. For now they're
pointing at ZODB trunk. A release tag will be made later (this is
_not_ ready for release yet; now I can start doing the work I wanted
to start doing on Monday 0.5
| At one point during the Zope/branches/tim-merge-zodb34 merge on my
| local box, svn got itself terminally confused, starting to create
| directories like lib/lib/python/ZODB (there are two lib/s in that --
| not a typo), and griping endlessly about locks and non-existent files.
| No amount of
[Sidnei da Silva]
Got one problem so far:
svn: Failed to add directory 'lib/python/BTrees/tests': object of the
same name already exists
Everything else seems to have updated with no problems to that point.
Ugh -- I'm afraid that's the very first of the 9 ZODB directories it
tried to
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 03:33:11PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
| Ugh -- I'm afraid that's the very first of the 9 ZODB directories it
| tried to update, and svn just isn't smart enough to delete the
| existing directories before trying to fetch the new ones.
Indeed it was. I think its a Good Thing.
I'm merging ZODB 3.4 into Zope on a branch. As Tres noted earlier in
a checkin comment, a test failure results, because at the ZODB sprint
we fleshed out IDataManager and an older Zope3 class claiming to
implement IDataManager no longer does. Since Zope trunk doesn't own
either the IDataManager
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Samstag, 19. März 2005 18:15 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No debate with doing an alpha, though. There are likely to be more kinks
to be worked out indeed.
I have update the 2.8 wiki with the planned release schedule.
Thanks! Looks good. I'll
--On Samstag, 19. März 2005 18:15 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No debate with doing an alpha, though. There are likely to be more kinks
to be worked out indeed.
I have update the 2.8 wiki with the planned release schedule.
I'd prefer a shorter cycle, with an alpha 2 this
Andreas,
thanks for your efforts
Robert
___
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 Freitag, 18. März 2005 12:31 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain
everything that will be part of the final release. A beta should not
development release where things are subject to change in some way.
We can do an
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 12:31 Uhr -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain
everything that will be part of the final release. A beta should not
development release where things are subject to change in
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of threads going on today re:
Zope X3.1 feature freeze and the 2.8 effort. I'd like to
clarify some decisions re: Zope 2.8
Jim is the product mgr for Zope 3 and I'm it for Zope 2, so
hopefully this can be considered authoritative and end part
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
I understand that Jim won't have time to do these until mid-april. Is
it absolutely impossible to ship a beta which is 'non optimized' or
something? I mean, we got Silva and Plone running on Zope 2.8..
A beta release should be feature-complete means it should contain
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
My point is: we are adding a lot of new code to the Zope 2 core - it
does not matter if there is a tight or a loose coupling between Z2
and Z3 - and calling it beta.
[snip]
My fear is that we are running into the same release problems as with
the Plone 2.0 release
Hi all,
There have been a number of threads going on today re:
Zope X3.1 feature freeze and the 2.8 effort. I'd like to
clarify some decisions re: Zope 2.8
Jim is the product mgr for Zope 3 and I'm it for Zope 2, so
hopefully this can be considered authoritative and end part
of this thread
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are
wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release.
While Jim still has a few things to do, people will be able
to start using the
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:22:26AM -0500, Brian Lloyd wrote:
[snip]
- Zope 2.8 will include X3.0 (not X3.1)
- The Z3 developers will have *no* extra burden or
responsibility to support X3.0 beyond what they
would normally do in the normal course of maintaining
it for
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Hi all,
There have been a number of threads going on today re:
Zope X3.1 feature freeze and the 2.8 effort. I'd like to
clarify some decisions re: Zope 2.8
Very much excellent! This, Jims announcement of the April 2 feature
freeze datem and Stephans statement that he was
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are
wrapped up, we'll ask Andreas to make a 2.8 beta 1 release.
While Jim still has
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 18:03 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- In the next few days at most, after a few loose ends are
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
Do some of these have something to do with a change to Python 2.4, by
the way?
No.
It's a bit unclear to me what version of Python this release is
targetting.
2.3
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540)
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. März 2005 18:03 Uhr +0100 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:42:05PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Freitag, 18. M?rz 2005 11:22 Uhr -0500 Brian Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- In the next few days at most, after a few
[Martijn Faassen]
...
Do some of these have something to do with a change to Python 2.4, by
the way?
[Jim Fulton]
No.
If you're using the Python 2.4 line, some of the security changes
triggered a Python bug that will be fixed in 2.4.1 (which is currently
in release candidate 2 status).
30 matches
Mail list logo
