Hi,
the restructured Text layout is busted. I just reverted some spam, but
that wasn't the issue. Could someone enlightened have a look, please?
Christian
--
Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49
Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the restructured Text layout is busted. I just reverted some spam, but
> that wasn't the issue. Could someone enlightened have a look, please?
>
(Worked ok when looking at the 'Preview' page)
I managed to get it into good shape again (saving with a wrong format,
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sun Sep 21 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Mon Sep 22 11:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sun Sep 21 20:55:07 EDT 2008
I just run into a with transaction manager and synchronizers.
If transaction.get implicitily creates a new transaction the synchronizers
are not called. This is not problem as long as no savepoints are used. If
savepoints are used the DataManagers created by synchronizers are not
present. Because
Roger Ineichen, on 2008-09-16:
> Hi
>
> I've got the following error during mechanize buildout:
>
> %<
> Getting distribution for 'mechanize'.
> warning: no files found matching '0.1.0-changes.txt'
> no previously-included directories found matching 'docs-in-progress'
> File
I'll look at this.
Jim
On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Jürgen kartnaller wrote:
> I just run into a with transaction manager and synchronizers.
>
> If transaction.get implicitily creates a new transaction the
> synchronizers are not called. This is not problem as long as no
> savepoints are use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jürgen kartnaller wrote:
> I just run into a with transaction manager and synchronizers.
>
> If transaction.get implicitily creates a new transaction the synchronizers
> are not called. This is not problem as long as no savepoints are used. If
> savep
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> So overall I'm +1
Me too!
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> +1 from me as well on IFoo.adapt() with the signature Chris suggested.
> "zope.component.getMultiAdapter()" is only easy to remember if you're a
> die-hard Zope coder, while IFoo.adapt() seems more useful to the larger
> Python community.
So if we're all in agreement, wh
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Without monkeypatching setuptools, we can't replace the testrunner it
> uses,
Perhaps we can submit a patch to setuptools that allows the testrunner
to be specified. I'm sure people using nose, etc, would be happy about
this as well and I can't see Phil Eby be too unhappy a
Now that ZCA is working with Python 2.5 on 32 and 64 bit platforms
(thanks guys!)
Is there a plan being formulated to address all the deprecation warnings
about 'with' becoming a reserved word in Python2.6?
Thanks,
--Tim
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Z
Gary Poster wrote:
[zc.blist]
> To release it responsibly now, someone needs to claim maintainership.
As I was the one asking in the first place, I'm willing to do this unless
there's a policy for zc.* packages to be maintained by ZC people or
something similar.
--
Thomas
___
12 matches
Mail list logo