Hi,
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:52 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 08:42, Christian Theune wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:35 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> >> 1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
> >> somebody to bug people about bugs in the bu
Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> I'm talking about a group of people who act as if they're responsible,
>> not your mythical committee. We should be able to find a bunch of people
>> with a sense of responsibility, right?
>
> Yes. But I don't think making them a steering group is going to help.
Just to
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:13, Christian Theune wrote:
> For some reason the argument evades me: People randomly doing stuff will
> end in good things. People (trying) to thoughtfully organize won't.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.
> No. The steering group should not have backroom
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
> gaps we had to plug.
Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
process and as few officialisms as possible. And I don't see that a
steering gro
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 02:35 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> * leadership could help sustain efforts like "we want the Zope Framework
> to run on Jython" and make detailed decisions based on this. Nobody
> right now can really decide on this.
Anecdote: Our current Jython story (due to last GSOC)
2009/3/2 Tres Seaver :
>>> -
>> I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files like the above.
>
> They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
> allow for something like 'sites-available' / 'sites-enabled' (the
> pattern in a stock Debian Apache2 install).
>
> I think
Hi All,
A reminder...
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The Zope Foundation would be happy to see people organize this. I
> personally won't be spending time on the summer of code this year
> however, so don't count on my helping to organize it this time.
>
> Wh
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Tres Seaver :
-
>>> I believe people still use the ZCML "slug" files like the above.
>>
>> They certainly aren't related to 'zpkg'. The intent of the slugs was to
>> allow for something like 'sites-available' / 'sites-enabled'
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:11:59 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > The Zope Framework project
> > ==
> >
> > :Author: Martijn Faassen
> > :Date: 2009-03-02
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> >
> > This document offers suggestions to reorganize our com
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> The main innovations in concepts are the name "Zope Framework" to
> distinguish it from the Zope 3 application server and the
> "core"/"extra" concept. These are all hopefully descriptions of what
> are current practices, simply making them more explicit.
>From what I read
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:49:43 schrieb Adam GROSZER:
> Hello,
>
> I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
> Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
> chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
Exactly. And if we look at o
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Mar 2 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Mar 3 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Mar 2 20:25:23 EST 2009
URL: http://
Am Montag 02 März 2009 19:34:11 schrieb Tres Seaver:
> Adam GROSZER wrote:
> > I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
> > Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
> > chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
> >
> > Yes s
Hi
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
[...]
> > Grok and Repoze are in part *workarounds* for the
> deficiencies in this
> > community. For Grok I'm very sure it's a workaround, as I had quite
> > something to do with it and this was explicit in my mind. It's not
> > *only*
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:53, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> My impression (from an external perspective) is that Zope Corporation did just
> that for Zope 2/3, but nowadays tries to give this role to the community.
No, I don't think we ever tried that. I think we should.
--
Lennart Regebro: Pyth
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> > Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
> > Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making such decisions and nobody can
> > properly get away with saying t
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:04, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> You can also call this anticipation the oposit of participation
:)
> The big questions now is, do we like to merge this good things
> back to the zope core or do we like to stay with different
> packages because we can't find an agreement wha
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 08:19:37 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 01:51, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> > Can you stop using the word "committee"? I didn't use it. A committee is
> > a bunch of people who has regular meetings, behind closed doors, to make
> > decisions. That's not wha
I find this thread quite ironic.
Martijn Faassen recognizes a problem, namely that there is no
direction in Zope development. Instead, when ideas are put forth lots
of people put in their oar with +1s and -1s and stop energy and cheer
leading one direction or another. In the end the ideas either g
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:33, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Hmmm, I have the slight feeling that your opinions are not that far away.
Of course not. This is, as aways, just a question of loudly agreeing.
--
Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista.
http://regebro.wordpress.com/
+33 661
Martijn Pieters wrote:
> Would it be possible to focus this discussion around clearer lines?
> Create counter proposals if you have to, discuss things on their
> merits, but if you cannot add more than a vague +1 and -1, please
> refrain.
I think that would be easier if we had a shorter proposal.
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
...
> And so far I haven't heard any better ideas than
> what Martijn is proposing (no, leaving the status quo, deny there is a
> problem and steer by majority is not a counter proposal in my view).
> It may be that the idea needs some tweaking,
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
> represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
> someone to think "big picture" in terms of what technologies we adopted
> and how we used them.
Just to be clear, I
On 3/2/09 6:36 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> To people who are suggesting we don't need a steering group nor a name
> for the Zope Framework, please answer the following questions:
>
> * how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
> disagree? What is the mechanism f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 14:45 Uhr, Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> In the past we've seen things like "let's unify Zope by merging the
> Zope2 and Zope3 mailing lists" get shot down by a couple of loud "no"
> votes. Loud no's have grown paralyzing.
This topic is
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> > Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
>> > Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
Who is going to ma
On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
> I'll chime in as a newbie.
>
> It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
> come from "we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves"
>
> I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the proposal
> has potential to make
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - Show quoted text -
> On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
> Adam GROSZER wrote:
> > Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
> > next day. That's a nightmare.
>
> That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
> are done sensibly.
Let me tell you from exper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> - - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
>> set is much smaller than either of the others?
>
> Probably none. So having better dependencies would obviously be good. I
> t
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> The irony is that the proposed solution, organized leadership, is
> going to suffer the same fate as the aforementioned ideas. Everyone is
> putting in their oar, +1s and -1s are flying right, left and centre,
> and this idea is either going to die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
>> Adam GROSZER wrote:
>>> Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
>>> next day. That's a nightmare.
>> That shouldn't happen with individual package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> What is going to make us more effective is:
>>
>> * a recognition of current reality, i.e. the Zope Framework is not the
>> same as the Zope 3 application server and it serves a far wider audience.
>
Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Plone, by the way, had a similar problem, and solved it by creating "the
>> framework team". This is a rolling body of people who are responsible
>> for putting out calls for and reviewing improvements proposals. They
>> basically report to the release manager, who makes t
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>
>
>>> - - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
>>> set is much smaller than either of the others?
>> Probably none. So having better depe
Chris Withers wrote:
> Adam GROSZER wrote:
>> Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
>> next day. That's a nightmare.
>
> That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
> are done sensibly.
> (ie: if you're going to do a big backwards-incompa
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
> production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
> of eggs from PyPI, for instance, which means
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli
wrote:
> > If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
> > gaps we had to plug.
>
> Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
> process and as few
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
> production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
> of eggs from PyPI, for instance, whi
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> My mild counter proposal was this.
>
> - The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start "Zope"
> projects
>
> - Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he described
>
> - Hopefully, people follow it.
>
> In other words, I
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> I think Martijn is trying to address something that Zope has lacked for
> a while. I don't think it'll solve all of the world's problems, nor do I
> think that Martijn things so, but it will make some things - things like
> this very debate - a bit easier
Paul Everitt wrote:
> On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
>> I'll chime in as a newbie.
>>
>> It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
>> come from "we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves"
>>
>> I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the propo
Christian Theune wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 02:35 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> * leadership could help sustain efforts like "we want the Zope Framework
>> to run on Jython" and make detailed decisions based on this. Nobody
>> right now can really decide on this.
>
> Anecdote: Our current
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
> zope.security dependency could benef
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
> I'm not sure Plone's model fits Zope perfectly, but certainly there are
> some lessons to be learned. We also have some of processes and
> documentation already in place, having made a few mistakes along the way.
Definitely, I'm very interested in seeing
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> 1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
> somebody to bug people about bugs in the bug tracker. That should be
> one person, for example. Responsibilities need to be well defined and
> individual. There isn't anybody called Someone here, s
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
>> No. The steering group should not have backroom discussions. They should
>> act as open as possible. I think of it as a catalyst.
>
> The operative here is *should*. Compare that to *will*. These are
> different words. What the steering group *should* do
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
>> As much as I prefer discussing with people in real life, there is the
>> notion of "no backroom conversations" WRT to driving development of an
>> open source project.
>
> OK. *Cough*. You and Martijn wrote this proposal. And you asked
> Stephan about it
Paul Everitt wrote:
> On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
>> represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
>> someone to think "big picture" in terms of what technologies we adopted
>> and how we used t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Tres Seaver wrote:
> [snip]
>> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
>> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
>> production application: I don't wan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 18:20, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I myself am inclined, for the Zope Framework, to start with the day to
> day team. I think it can deduce at least some long term directions from
> the community on the mailing list and usage in practice (also by
> consultation). We could amend
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Martin Aspeli wrote:
> [snip]
>> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
>> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
>> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
>> z
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
>> useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
>> production application: I don't w
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start "Zope" projects under
the Zope umbrella.
I agree that such projects could compete for attention and may the best
one win.
I think this is w
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
> Actually Martijn tried to be better than that. :-) Instead of just forming a
> steering group (which I would interpret as a Zope project) and announcing it
> to the community, he asked for feedback first. :-)
Thanks. :)
> I probably agree he should have jus
Boy, there's no point in trying to outrun this thread, I'd better just
jump in here. Martin I think you said that very well and I'm convinced.
I appreciate and generally support Martijn's proposal. When in doubt,
I'd be in favour of emulating what's been shown to work in the Plone
community - eg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Paul Everitt wrote:
>> On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
>>> represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
>>> someone to think
Hi there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
>>> ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
>>> boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone wh
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
>> (though I did hear positive news about it). I do have the
>> impression the framework team strategy works reasonably well; it's been
>> operating for about 2 releases now?
> It works as a way of sharing the load with the release manager. Because
> its members don't
On 3 Mar 2009, at 18:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Ah, so Plone currently has long term direction as they think 2
> releases
> ahead of just one?
Plone 4 discussions are happening around now, there are demos of
suggested concepts and people generally working on the codebase.
Plone 5 is a l
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 19:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Different participants will report differently about the success, no
> doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
> "decisions" taken at the PSPS as "advisory", "just talk", etc: having
> no force in governing the more "tactica
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Martin Aspeli wrote:
>>> [snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of th
On 3/3/09 2:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> And you think it's all due to the brand...
>
> Yes! Someone who *wants* to use basic ZCML directives but doesn't want
> zope.security, zope.location, zope.publisher, zope.traversing, zope.i18n, and
> pytz can *already* use repoz
Hi there,
Chris, I think you are misunderstanding my position quite
dramatically. Perhaps you should calm down and reconsider what I've
been saying, as I believe we're a lot closer than you seem to think.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
>> I'd rather have one underl
Hi there,
I thought I should highlight this characterization of the Zope project
because I agree with much of it but also disagree with much of it.
Chris McDonough wrote:
> I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the
> last
> 9 years (
9 years is a long time, an
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> It might be we are able to establish a "framework team" without
> elections by just picking out the bunch of people who are interested in
> this.
That's been the Plone approach to creating the "framework team". Some
people just decided to do it and didn't even bothered t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Log message for revision 97465:
> Branch removing zope.deferred.
This checkin is the branch I had in mind when sketching out a
non-CPython-only zope.component story today. Notes on the changes:
- - The branch kills off both th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>> Log message for revision 97465:
>> Branch removing zope.deferred.
>>
>>
>> Changed:
>> D zope.component/branches/tseaver-wo_zope_deferred/src/zope/component/bbb/
>
>> -# BBB: Backward-compatibility
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>>> Log message for revision 97465:
>>> Branch removing zope.deferred.
>>>
>>>
>>> Changed:
>>> D
>>> zope.component/branches/tseaver-wo_zope_deferred/src/zope/component
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>> 2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
Log message for revision 97465:
Branch removing zope.deferred.
Changed:
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
from this point on, any package shared between repoze.bfg
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Different participants will report differently about the success, no
> doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
> "decisions" taken at the PSPS as "advisory", "just talk", etc: having
> no force in governing the more "tactical" decisions.
I don't know wh
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Okay, I guess we do differ here. I think a leader can provide
> encouragement and stimulate people into action, point out interesting
> outstanding tasks, and make sure that people who are motivated actually
> get grip on improving the project and don't get discouraged.
Tres Seaver wrote:
> - - The branch kills off both the use of 'zope.deferredimport' and the
> 'bbb' subpackage, leaving something which could be used in Jython, or
> IronPython, or the GAE.
Why is zope.deferredimport a problem? Does it do something CPython
specific? As a small utility, I don
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> - - The branch kills off both the use of 'zope.deferredimport' and the
>> 'bbb' subpackage, leaving something which could be used in Jython, or
>> IronPython, or the GAE.
>
> Why is zope.deferredimpo
On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey Gary,
>
> [panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
> compete for attention]
[Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
> I agree that it should be relatively easy to start "Zope" projects
> under
> t
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
>> My mild counter proposal was this.
>>
>> - The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start "Zope"
>> projects
>>
>> - Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he
>> de
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> FWIW, the only polish I'd love to see is static pages for past dev
> releases (or did I miss them?)
Well, it is a matter of version numbering, but all versions that have a unique
version number are listed here:
http://download.zope.org/zope3.4/
W
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
> > We do have this system today.
> >
> > http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/waterfall
>
> Wow, great.
>
> Too bad about the failures. How are you announcing the failures ATM?
No, maybe someone can provide that service? ;-)
BTW, I have decided not to go a
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> Sorry, the "you" above in "you scolded" was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
>
> Note that the "scolding" had something to do with you breaking Plone
> trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
> from this point on, any
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>
> - - Due to the 'test' extra, buildout pulls in a bunch of extra
> dependencies, which I would like to zap (ZODB? really? just to
> verify that the persistent registry survives 'dumps' and 'loads'?)
>
> - - 'setup.py test' needs 'zope.testing', but then doesn't do anyt
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the things I'm
also in favor of. But we do have real differences in opinion I
2009/3/4 Tres Seaver :
>>> Note that I'm not actually proposing that we merge this branch any time
>>> soon: it is a bit of a straw man for the ongoing process conversation.
>>
>> Why not? It looks that it's just a dependency cleanup, so it can be
>> merged (and released!) really soon (if noone ob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 7:52 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
> have. It's heartening to hear that you're
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more than
> we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
> have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of the things I'm
> al
Andreas Jung wrote:
>> 2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
>> between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
>> this as
>> continuing our mistakes of old by trying to treat some collection of
>> software as
>> "Zope" as opposed t
87 matches
Mail list logo
