Hey,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > but I don't see it flying
> > given the sentiments against that idea so far. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> Humm. Maybe there's just a misunderstanding. I didn't get that you
> wanted to only trump version pin
Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
I think the term 'develop' is badly chosen. You are right if you argue
while having the meaning of 'develop' in mind. You are explaining what
you think a 'develop' option should be. A 'develop' option means: "I
want to 'develop' o
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Christophe Combelles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But probably the feature has been created before the name 'develop' was
> chosen,
> and it should have an other name ('egg_path'? 'local_egg'?).
source_egg?
--
Lennart Regebro: Zope and Plone consulting.
http:
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Here's an idea:
Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints.
As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or
continue to work.
I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was aimi
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Here's an idea:
Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints.
As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or
continue to work.
I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was aiming at, and I
think it doesn't
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I
developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an
application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies
the the requirements in setup.
On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or
2) rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that
Hey,
Thanks everybody for this discussion. I'm going to bail out now, and I
want to share some of my conclusions:
* We're going to have to live with the current 'versions/develop' story
for a while. I've started try to document the existing behavior in
buildout's doctests (faassen-develop) b
Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2)
rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning messages
Aaron Lehmann a écrit :
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or 2)
rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning messag
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
Nope. I'm not always working against a fixed version list. E.g. when I
developt z3c.zalchemy then this is a library package, not an
application, so I don't fix the versions but let anything that satisfies
the the requirements in setup.py come in.
This thread is ca
On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Christophe Combelles wrote:
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
The two easiest choices are 1) issue a clear warning in stderr, or
2) rename 'develop' to something else.
So, the people that understand either get spammed with warning
messages every build, or hav
Martijn Faassen a écrit :
(...)
I think the term 'develop' is badly chosen. You are right if you argue while
having the meaning of 'develop' in mind. You are explaining what you think a
'develop' option should be. A 'develop' option means: "I want to 'develop' on
this package, so I want it
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> >Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >>Christian Theune wrote:
> >>>Martijn Faassen schrieb:
> >>[snip]
> It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
> version number) repeats here.
> >>>It's not clear to m
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those functio
[Originally sent to Martin only; meant to send to the list.]
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Meanwhile, you're satisfied already with actually looking at setup.py of
> the develop package and then repeating the version number *too*. It's
> fascin
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
> >Martijn Faassen schrieb:
> [snip]
> >>It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
> >>version number) repeats here.
> >
> >It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
> >those functions a
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
It's a clear DRY violation, the name of the package (and even the
version number) repeats here.
It's not clear to me that it's a DRY violation (see my argument that
those functions are actually orthogonal).
The rule for the most commo
David Pratt wrote:
Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your
comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking
buildout to do. I share this view.
It's not very useful to talk about a "we" asking buildout to do things
when there is clearly a debate and
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action,
and you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*.
Havin
Christian Theune wrote:
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
[snip]
I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit action, and
you place it on that line because you want to *develop on it*. Having
another package being picked
Hi Christian
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout 'versions' and 'develop' conflict
[...]
> > I think the explicit versus implicit discussion has no place here.
> > Placing a package on the 'develop' line is a very explicit
> action, and
&
Hi Martijn. I respect the points you make, but disagree with your
comments. Wichert's reply accurately articulates what we are asking
buildout to do. I share this view.
On a personal note, I tend to rely on my own version lists but refer to
the online lists (for support in creating them). On e
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
Stephan Richter schrieb:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
The additional version specification should be merged into the
extends version
section. The version "1.3.1dev" is the version the develop egg
specifies.
Yes. That
Hi,
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a
conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a
version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances
would be to append a custom versions.
Christian Theune wrote:
Stephan Richter schrieb:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
The additional version specification should be merged into the
extends version
section. The version "1.3.1dev" is the version the develop egg
specifies.
Yes. That's how it works now.
Cool, th
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jim Fulton wrote:
The additional version specification should be merged into the
extends version
section. The version "1.3.1dev" is the version the develop egg
specifies.
Yes. That's how it works now.
Cool, then I think the behavior is c
David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I agree with Jim. Buildout is doing the right thing. This is not a
conflict since you have explicitly identified the software with a
version already. I think the right thing to do under the circumstances
would be to append a custom versions.cfg to nail the versions you wa
28 matches
Mail list logo
