On Jun 18, 2008, at 20:30 , yuppie wrote:
The current Zope 2 policy doesn't make sure the change history of
unreleased versions is complete. But that's no essential part of
that policy. And working with unreleased versions you might use
subversion anyway.
See, I think that's bad. The chan
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:08:54AM +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 20:30 , yuppie wrote:
>> The current Zope 2 policy doesn't make sure the change history of
>> unreleased versions is complete. But that's no essential part of that
>> policy. And working with unreleased versi
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:09:17PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> [...]
> If I know I normally only have to check the bottom (or top) of each
> section to see whether something got added since last time I checked,
> there's less chance I'll miss it and make a mistake.
>
> It's not a major p
On Jun 19, 2008, at 09:51 , Christian Theune wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:08:54AM +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
See, I think that's bad. The change log should reflect all changes,
be
it in a released version or from Subversion. Or be it a release
branch
or the trunk.
Please note that
It's helpful to post your responses to the mailing list, that way when
someone else has a similar problem in the future they'll be able to
find the information.
Inheriting from Persistent is also necessary to control the
granularity of the database. Persistent objects are saved as separate
`record
Sorry, wrong list.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/li
Hi!
Second try. My first response to this lead to a discussion about
immediate or delayed syncing of CHANGES.txt. That was not my point.
Christian Theune wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:20:17AM -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Christophe Combelles <[EMAIL PROTECT
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Jun 18 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Thu Jun 19 11:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Wed Jun 18 20:53:49 EDT 2008
URL: http://m
On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:32 , yuppie wrote:
There is always *one* well defined current maintenance branch.
Version numbering *does* imply a time line if you ignore old
maintenance branches. It's not hard at all to get this right.
I don't think that assumption holds true. Again, using the CMF
Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of code
where people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we started
registering views differently, wouldn't that code br
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:32 , yuppie wrote:
There is always *one* well defined current maintenance branch. Version
numbering *does* imply a time line if you ignore old maintenance
branches. It's not hard at all to get this right.
I don't think that assumption holds true.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:09:17PM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> [...]
>> If I know I normally only have to check the bottom (or top) of each
>> section to see whether something got added since last time I checked
On Jun 19, 2008, at 13:36 , yuppie wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:32 , yuppie wrote:
There is always *one* well defined current maintenance branch.
Version numbering *does* imply a time line if you ignore old
maintenance branches. It's not hard at all to get this right
Tres Seaver wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
My preference would be to have more important changes first.
Please don't make it a judgement call: keep it time-descending order,
just like the releases. Among other things, this makes merge conflicts
more obvious, and easier to to fix.
W
On Jun 19, 2008, at 14:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
My preference would be to have more important changes first.
Please don't make it a judgement call: keep it time-descending
order,
just like the releases. Among other things, this makes m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Christian Theune wrote:
> [snip]
>>> My preference would be to have more important changes first.
>> Please don't make it a judgement call: keep it time-descending order,
>> just like the releases. Among
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 13:36 , yuppie wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:32 , yuppie wrote:
There is always *one* well defined current maintenance branch.
Version numbering *does* imply a time line if you ignore old
maintenance branches. It's not hard at
David Glick wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of
code where people look up views with a getMultiAdapter, and if we
started r
On Jun 19, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
David Glick wrote:
On Jun 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Malthe Borch wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There's one major problem that I see. What's the backwards
compatibility story? I'm sure there are a lot of cases in lots of
code where
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:46:35AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> - decide on and advertise the new interface
>
> - continue to do look ups the way we do now
>
> - update relevant zcml directives (view, page, resource. etc.) to use
> the new interface
>
> - issue informative deprecatio
On Jun 19, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 09:46:35AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
I suggest:
- decide on and advertise the new interface
- continue to do look ups the way we do now
- update relevant zcml directives (view, page, resource. etc.) to use
the new
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:50:00AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Would it be reasonable to also issue a warning if someone does a
>> lookup for
>> Interface?
>
>
> No, because clients have to look up using Interface as long as the
> component they need might be registered with it.
Is that an arg
On Jun 19, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:50:00AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
Would it be reasonable to also issue a warning if someone does a
lookup for
Interface?
No, because clients have to look up using Interface as long as the
component they need mig
Hi there,
I've made zope.sqlalchemy work with SQLAlchemy 0.5 beta 1, recently
released.
This involved:
* the 'transactional=True' argument has become 'autocommit=False'
* various accesses that the tests were doing to get query.table and such
didn't work anymore. I replaced them with direct
Hi there,
I'd like to announce my contribution for the expanding list of options
for SQLAlchemy integration for Zope 3.
I've just implemented a package called z3c.saconfig which implements a
utility-based way to set up SQLAlchemy's scoped session, as discussed
recently on this.
The package
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I've made zope.sqlalchemy work with SQLAlchemy 0.5 beta 1, recently
released.
This involved:
* the 'transactional=True' argument has become 'autocommit=False'
* various accesses that the tests were doing to get query.table and such
didn't work anymore. I re
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
I've made the branch backwards compatible with 0.4 and merged to trunk.
I'd like to keep compatibility while we can.
Yeah, looks good, thanks!
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mai
Hey,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I intend to add support for a local utility soon,
inspired by some code sent to me by Hermann Himmelbauer.
This is now in there. It only looks faintly like Hermann's code, but it
was still very useful.
You can register an engine factory globally or locally. This
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 20:51 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to announce my contribution for the expanding list of options
> for SQLAlchemy integration for Zope 3.
>
> I've just implemented a package called z3c.saconfig which implements a
> utility-based way to set up SQLAlc
Am Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 00:14 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hey,
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > I intend to add support for a local utility soon,
> > inspired by some code sent to me by Hermann Himmelbauer.
>
> This is now in there. It only looks faintly like Hermann's code, but it
> was still very
30 matches
Mail list logo
