[Zope-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Andreas Jung wrote: My recommendation: 1 yr deprecation period as it is now 1 yr + X maintenance period for older branches. +1 Note that this should also extend to the Zope 3 releases. Zope 3.2 is part of Zope 2.9 and will hence be used for quite some time. Yet, bugfixes aren't even

[Zope-dev] Re: Time-based releases a good idea?

2006-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Dieter Maurer wrote: * cutting down the amount of code duplication and duplicated frameworks. We've had two ZPT implementations, now we have to maintain only one. We had our own logging framework, now we can simply use Python's, etc. The second logging framework (zLOG) was a tiny wrapper

[Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Florent Guillaume wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote: So here's a proposal: how about having the following order: - __bobo_traverse__ - unacquired attribute - zope 3 views - acquired attributes Attached is the current diff I'm working with (for Zope 2.10). Hey, cool. You know, the real

[Zope-dev] Re: Time-based releases a good idea?

2006-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Chris Withers wrote: Tres Seaver wrote: Unit test coverate for custom products is actually quite good. The problems are nearly always to do with third party products, many of which have been in useful stable mode since long before either deprectaions or ubiquitous unit testing were part of

[Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Florent Guillaume
On 18 Jun 2006, at 12:37, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote: Florent Guillaume wrote: So here's a proposal: how about having the following order: - __bobo_traverse__ - unacquired attribute - zope 3 views - acquired attributes Attached is the current diff I'm working

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Lennart Regebro
On 6/18/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The remaining important question is: if a *default* view is specified using the zope 3 mechanism, should we always treat it as a zope 3 view, and refuse to lookup an attribute with that name? Yep. browser:defaultView should only

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Florent Guillaume
On 18 Jun 2006, at 20:15, Lennart Regebro wrote: If you want to have non-views as browser default, we still need to use __browser_default__, then. The option is to allow attributes, and specify the browserdefault with @@ to force it to be a view. But that wouldn't be compatible with what

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Lennart Regebro
On 6/18/06, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Jun 2006, at 20:15, Lennart Regebro wrote: If you want to have non-views as browser default, we still need to use __browser_default__, then. The option is to allow attributes, and specify the browserdefault with @@ to force it to

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Lennart Regebro
On 6/18/06, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1, I'd like some way to easily know when a release is no longer maintained. i.e., what's the X in the above formula. Well, it's 2 versions, so far. I.e, current release and last release. Unless we decide to change that now. -- Lennart

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Paul Winkler
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:30:58PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote: On 6/18/06, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1, I'd like some way to easily know when a release is no longer maintained. i.e., what's the X in the above formula. Well, it's 2 versions, so far. I.e, current release and

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Christian Theune
Lennart Regebro wrote: On 6/18/06, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1, I'd like some way to easily know when a release is no longer maintained. i.e., what's the X in the above formula. Well, it's 2 versions, so far. I.e, current release and last release. Unless we decide to change that

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Andreas Jung
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we currently have 7 branches to watch out for. Yes, but in most cases a fix only affects only Zope 2 or Zope 3. So we are back to 3. -aj -- ZOPYX

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Christian Theune
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we currently have 7 branches to watch out for. Yes, but in most cases a fix only affects only Zope 2 or Zope 3. So we are back to

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Andreas Jung
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:35:48 -0400 Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:30:58PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote: On 6/18/06, Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1, I'd like some way to easily know when a release is no longer maintained. i.e., what's the X in the

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Stable / Development branches?

2006-06-18 Thread Andreas Jung
--On 18. Juni 2006 14:46:27 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Jung wrote: --On 18. Juni 2006 14:36:06 -0400 Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, Zope 2.8 is still available for stable download ... so we currently have 7 branches to watch out for. Yes,

[Zope-dev] Re: Time-based releases a good idea?

2006-06-18 Thread Dieter Maurer
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-6-18 12:28 +0200: ... Its configuration was documented in the Zope schema file. Its single API method was self explaining... Not everybody is as smart as you are, Dieter. Thank you :-) And certainly not everyone would get the idea of reading code or

Re: [Zope-dev] Re: default view

2006-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Lennart Regebro wrote: On 6/18/06, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The remaining important question is: if a *default* view is specified using the zope 3 mechanism, should we always treat it as a zope 3 view, and refuse to lookup an attribute with that name? Yep.