Andrew Milton wrote:
> +---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
> | Andrew Milton wrote:
> | > +---[ Stephan Richter ]--
> | > | Hello everyone,
> | > |
> | > | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
> | > | development pr
Jim Fulton wrote:
Only you and Philipp were excited about this. Not sure that
constitutes a ringing endorsement. Maybe others will chime in now.
I'm +10 too.
I'd like to see this happen before the end of the year.
Well, given that the majority are +/-0 and with the exception of one or
tw
Fred Drake wrote:
On 2/16/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be clear: I'm talking _only_ about merging the dev lists, _not_ the
user lists. The users lists are still largely independent, but it seems
like just about every post to the dev list now has a bearing on both
Zope 2 and Zo
done
--On 21. Februar 2006 08:00:47 +0100 robert rottermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 21:37:10 +0100 Andreas Jung
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am plan to release Zope 2.8.6 and 2.9.1 in the middle of February
(around Feb, 15th).
Unfortunately I
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3168
Blamelist: andreasjung,hdima,jim,oestermeier,shh,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
Hi there,
I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
There are a few places in Zope 2 where they are still used for checks
(mostly webdav, OFS, ZCTextIndex). For the deprec
Andrew Milton wrote:
> +---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
> |
> | Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a
> | Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just
> | like that code is to be made ZPL.
>
> The license part is irre
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>Andrew Milton wrote:
>
>
>>+---[ Stephan Richter ]--
>>| Hello everyone,
>>|
>>| With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
>>| development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the
>>adoption
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
+10
But we can't deprecate z2 interfaces as long as Zope 2 itself uses them
fo
yuppie wrote:
>> I don't think it will make much sense to keep Zope 2 interfaces around
>> for more than one year from now. In other words, I'm suggesting to
>> deprecate them for Zope 2.10.
>
>
> +10
>
> But we can't deprecate z2 interfaces as long as Zope 2 itself uses them
> for other tasks t
Hi Philipp!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
There are a few places in Zope 2 where they are still used for checks
(mostly webdav, OFS, ZCTextIndex).
In detail these are:
1.) WriteLock: Objects are only lockable if their class has
WriteLockInterface in its __implements__ list.
Andrew Milton wrote:
> +---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
> |
> | > | * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term
> | > | IP protection
> | >
> | > How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or
> in
> | > fact the de
On Monday 20 February 2006 19:24, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> My immediate concern is about resources: Who will have the time or
> incentive to police the common repository and grant certification? It
> seems to be a non-trivial process that may end up being quite
> time-consuming. It may be perceived a
On Monday 20 February 2006 20:09, Andrew Milton wrote:
> So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign
> over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation
> later), and then check it into the svn respository.
>
> Is this is correct?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NO
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a*
> repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example
> the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
Correct.
> I had earlier su
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote:
Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context.
>
> The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level
> repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating
> everything in the wider Zope community. It is
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 03:57, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Putting stuff into svn.zope.org *does* have advantages:
>
> * it's easy to feed packages upstream to Zope for a later inclusion into
> a Zope distribution.
>
> * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-te
Okay, this discussion is off-topic. I will not respond to it, unless I read
about something that relates directly to the proposal.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
__
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:13, Andrew Milton wrote:
> Why should Mark Shuttleworth who has plenty of means, hand over IP for
> (parts of) SchoolTool? I'm sure he has more than enough ways to protect his
> IP. Or are you saying that it makes sense for ZF/ZC to protect him?
The reason the School
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:30, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer
> a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows,
> perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :).
Th
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:15, Andrew Milton wrote:
> The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope
> Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be
> 'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case.
That's not true. Phillip and I both negate
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:47, whit wrote:
> what hopefully zscp would do is allow a code commons at one end (ala
> collective, easy entry, friendly to experimentation) and a fully
> certified set of components at the other.
>
> In between, there would be well defined process for how software m
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be
> decoupled.
The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I
decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons:
(1) Bandwidth. Dis
Stephan Richter wrote:
>(2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience
>in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have
>practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not
>getting paid for this. By biggest interest here i
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3191
Blamelist: frerich,hdima,mkerrin,philikon,srichter,whitmo,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
25 matches
Mail list logo
