Previously Jacob Holm wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
There is a compromise I am willing to take. If package zope.bar depends
on a
*new feature* or *feature change* in zope.foo 1.3.x, then it should
My apologies. I sent this to the wrong list.
H
___
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
Hi
I would like to chime in here on the zcml
I have managed to get a core stack of zope3 running on gae
had to hack a lot of zope.security and zope.proxy to get it there, but
it all works quite well
I found I had to ignore zope.configuration to get most of the base
stack working because the
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Mar 16 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Mar 17 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 16 21:24:04 EDT 2009
URL:
On Mar 16, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
Yes, +1. Thank you. I was about to write to your other message that
this was quite possibly the only 3.8 dependency.
Cool. Committed.
If we do that, then we can let plone.relations depend on
zc.relationship
1.1.1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if
someone installs one of our packages that package will work as expected.
If a package will only work with a certain revisions of a dependent
package it has to state say.
I do see a useful
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Please don't put words in my mouth. I *do* care that the
mega-frameworks succeed.
My apologies, I got this impression because you very much want to frame
the debate in terms of libraries, but I understand that is also a way to
try to improve the whole.
However,
Hey,
Carsten Senger wrote:
[snip]
zcml contains many useful informations and I often use it as
documentation how things fit together. It would be a loss to detach all
zcml from the implementations into one/few big zcml packages.
Moving them into one dedicated zcml for every package leaves
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
If a package defines a *lot* of ZCML, we will have to wonder about the
purpose of the package (is this really a library-like package or more
like an application defining a UI or something?), and we'll have to
think about another strategy.
I
Hey Tim,
Tim Hoffman wrote:
I would like to chime in here on the zcml
[snip]
Thanks for this balanced view which gives points that can be used to
support both sides in the discussion:
* today, the ZCML is very useful to understand how a package is supposed
to be put together. Removing the
Hi All (maybe just Jim? ;-) ),
Just did a buildout involving zope.interface and got:
Getting distribution for 'zope.interface'.
WARNING:
An optional code optimization (C extension) could not be compiled.
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All I want is if
someone installs one of our packages that package will work as expected.
If a package will only work with a certain revisions of a dependent
package it
Hi Wichert, Steering Group?
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] setting missing minimum version in setup.py
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
I see no useful different between x.y and x.y.z here. All
I want is
if someone installs one of our packages that
Roger Ineichen wrote:
What do you do if version x.y works with d.e.d but not with
d.e.e (because it's borken) and fixed in d.e.f.
This means you could use d.e.d or d.e.f. but not d.e.e
What's your solution then?
Fix the version to d.e.d or d.e.f or skip fixing versions?
The version
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Shane Hathaway wrote:
The version requirements in setup.py should specify only API
compatibility. They have nothing to do with bug fixes; that's the
domain of the KGS. How about an example.
Yes, that's a good summary of what we agreed on. The more I think about it,
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
If a package defines a *lot* of ZCML, we will have to wonder about the
purpose of the package (is this really a library-like package or more
like an application defining a UI or something?), and we'll have to
think about
16 matches
Mail list logo