Previously Chris Withers wrote:
> The implicit change to make them all 64-bits which results in some
> unknown slowdown for all "I" BTree users seems a bit too scary to bite
> off...
Has anyone done any benchmarks to prove that 64-bits is slower or
faster? It would be interesting to see benchmar
Am Dienstag, den 18.04.2006, 23:43 +0200 schrieb Wichert Akkerman:
> Previously Stefan H. Holek wrote:
> > http://www.zope.org/Members/4am/debugspinningzope
>
> And now for windows... :)
Try googling for 'deadlockdebugger'.
Christian
--
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstraße 29 - 06112 halle/sa
After consulting with Andreas, there will be a Zope 2.9.3 bugfix release
next Monday. It will contain some more Zope 3 packages that were
forgotten in the initial Zope 2.9 release line (my bad). There will also
be one or two Five bugfixes.
If you have a bugfix in the line for Zope 2.9, you have ti
Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> After consulting with Andreas, there will be a Zope 2.9.3 bugfix release
> next Monday. It will contain some more Zope 3 packages that were
> forgotten in the initial Zope 2.9 release line (my bad). There will also
> be one or two Five bugfixes.
>
> If
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Chris Withers wrote:
The implicit change to make them all 64-bits which results in some
unknown slowdown for all "I" BTree users seems a bit too scary to bite
off...
Has anyone done any benchmarks to prove that 64-bits is slower or
faster? It would be inte
Wichert Akkerman wrote at 2006-4-18 23:43 +0200:
>Previously Stefan H. Holek wrote:
>> http://www.zope.org/Members/4am/debugspinningzope
>
>And now for windows... :)
Install "cygwin" and do it like you would under *nix.
--
Dieter
___
Zope-Dev maillist
Andreas Jung wrote at 2006-4-18 20:54 +0200:
> ...
>--On 18. April 2006 18:52:10 +0200 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Alec Mitchell wrote at 2006-4-17 14:53 -0700:
>>> ...
>>> Yes, it does sound like a better solution. However, the issue I see
>>> with it is that it is essentially
--On 19. April 2006 18:38:05 +0200 Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thus, even a strict release manager might accept it.
Am I strict? :-)
Do you accept it? ;-)
As release manager I don't have to dig into every problem. Patches + tests
are of course accepted if there is some co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris Withers wrote:
>
>>The implicit change to make them all 64-bits which results in some
>>unknown slowdown for all "I" BTree users seems a bit too scary to bite
>>off...
>
>
> Has anyone done any benchmarks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>
>>After consulting with Andreas, there will be a Zope 2.9.3 bugfix release
>>next Monday. It will contain some more Zope 3 packages that were
>>forgotten in the initial Zope 2.9 r
--On 19. April 2006 15:30:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'll note that I have a client who can't move forward from 2.9.1 to
2.9.3 because the changes to traversal semantics in that release break
every view lookup in the application (which was originally built on
2.8.x, and w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
>
>
> --On 19. April 2006 15:30:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll note that I have a client who can't move forward from 2.9.1 to
>> 2.9.3 because the changes to traversal semantics in that release bre
On 4/19/06, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would vote to delay a release until we find a way to restore the
> broken functionality. Could we perhaps provide an alternate
> implementation with the original lookup order, and make it pluggable?
Possibly. But more interestingly, can you p
--On 19. April 2006 15:55:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The discussion on the list of the "fix" didn't take into account all the
usage patterns.
I would vote to delay a release until we find a way to restore the
broken functionality. Could we perhaps provide an alternate
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>>>
>>> --On 19. April 2006 15:30:44 -0400 Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
I'll note that I have a client who can't move forward from 2.9.1 to
2.9.3 because the changes to traversal semantics in that release break
every view loo
Andreas Jung wrote:
>> The discussion on the list of the "fix" didn't take into account all the
>> usage patterns.
>>
>> I would vote to delay a release until we find a way to restore the
>> broken functionality. Could we perhaps provide an alternate
>> implementation with the original lookup orde
16 matches
Mail list logo
