Tres Seaver wrote:
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 10:58, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
I don't know about 'blessing', but I'm using it on a project currently
(Python 2.3 and Zope 2.6.2) without glitches.
Andrew
Toby Dickenson wrote:
Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python
--On Samstag, 4. Oktober 2003 10:20 Uhr +0300 Myroslav Opyr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not sure if it was Python itself or some 3rd party product like
TextIndexNG but the issues arised.
There is no such problem with TextIndexNG.
-aj
___
Zope-Dev
+1000 for moving directly to 2.3.2
I maintain several existing Zope add-on products that have to change
anyway to be compatible
with 2.7. Why on earth would I want to go through that pain *twice* ?
Change is inevitable. Killing two birds with one stone means less pain
overall, IMHO.
--Craeg
Some people at ZC have made pretty compelling arguments to make Python
2.3.2 the recommended version of Python to use with Zope 2.7 final.
I'm wondering if other people have a strong feeling about this either
way.
--
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope Corporation
Weren't there some arguments that the security machinery must be checked
against the changes in
Python 2.3? Are we sure that 2.7 is as secure with 2.3 as with 2.2? In any
case a bit +1 for going to 2.3.2.
-aj
--On Freitag, 3. Oktober 2003 10:21 Uhr -0400 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, to be clear, there hasn't been any formal security audit of the
combination of Python 2.2 with Zope 2.7. So we'd lose nothing by moving
directly to 2.3. Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7
final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2.
On Fri,
On Friday 03 October 2003 15:33, Chris McDonough wrote:
Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7
final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2.
Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python 2.2/2.3 ?
--
Toby Dickenson
I don't know about 'blessing', but I'm using it on a project currently
(Python 2.3 and Zope 2.6.2) without glitches.
Andrew
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Friday 03 October 2003 15:33, Chris McDonough wrote:
Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7
final release, and the audit would
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Friday 03 October 2003 15:33, Chris McDonough wrote:
Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7
final release, and the audit would be performed against Python 2.3.2.
Does anyone else have an interest in blessing
On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 10:58, Andrew Sawyers wrote:
I don't know about 'blessing', but I'm using it on a project currently
(Python 2.3 and Zope 2.6.2) without glitches.
Andrew
Toby Dickenson wrote:
Does anyone else have an interest in blessing Zope 2.6.x with Python 2.2/2.3 ?
We have
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:33:01AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
Well, to be clear, there hasn't been any formal security audit of the
combination of Python 2.2 with Zope 2.7. So we'd lose nothing by moving
directly to 2.3. Jim is keen to get an audit going quickly before a 2.7
final
Am Fr, 2003-10-03 um 17.16 schrieb Paul Winkler:
The only counterargument i can think of is that 2.3 may not be
bundled with many linux distros yet. I've always compiled my own
python for use with zope, so I don't know how big a deal that is.
Debian stable requires it's own backports (self
Paul Winkler writes:
then by all means, 2.3.2. These audits seem to be hard to get going
on a regular basis (we've been on python 2.1.3 for how long now?)
so I see no point in blessing a version of python that's already not
latest-and-greatest.
It's not just that Python 2.2.3 is no
13 matches
Mail list logo
