On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 02:25:38PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
The problem is that the visibility of issues in Launchpad is very poor.
You can't even get notifications of bugs unless you're part of the
development team.
You don't have to be part of the development team. You can go to
Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 02:25:38PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
The problem is that the visibility of issues in Launchpad is very poor.
You can't even get notifications of bugs unless you're part of the
development team.
You don't have to be part of the development
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
I see no such option on:
https://launchpad.net/zope2
This page has the option:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope2
Bugs tab on this link takes one to the above URL.
https://launchpad.net/zope2
Chetan
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 09:31:42AM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 02:25:38PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
The problem is that the visibility of issues in Launchpad is very
poor. You can't even get notifications of bugs unless you're part of
the
Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
https://launchpad.net/zope2
Oh, that's unfortunate. There you have to go to the Bugs tab, and then
you should see a Subscribe to bug mail link in the middle of the page.
...and even there it's pretty well hidden.
Why isn't it a big button like Report a bug and Ask a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
https://launchpad.net/zope2
Oh, that's unfortunate. There you have to go to the Bugs tab, and then
you should see a Subscribe to bug mail link in the middle of the page.
...and even there it's pretty well
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue May 12 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed May 13 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Tue May 12 20:52:26 EDT 2009
URL:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Another thing is this: even if we're successful in teasing out dependency
info
so we do have a collection of truly independently useful things, after it's
all
over, we're going to get to a point one way or another where we make a big
package of stuff that just
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip extending configuration patterns instead of replacing wholesale]
Often this code makes the subframework tremendously complex, and the
subframework grows inappropriate dependencies along the way. *Sometimes* the
situation gets so confusing for a new user, they
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 15:29, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.comwrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
We can ameliorate the situation in a few ways:
- We can reduce the number of distributions.
- We can make each current Zope package distribution independently
useful.
My suggestion
Hey Chris,
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 5/12/09 4:44 AM, Patrick Gerken wrote:
[snip]
I don't think there will ever be a point where it's finished; at least not
in
any time frame in which Zope is still relevant at the end. Sure, we can keep
the current setuptools distributions and keep
Hey,
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
If your package depends on zope.app.publisher, you get *78* eggs.
63 eggs these days, by my measurement. Still far too many. I think with
some effort we can chop off quite a few more.
Look here at the main cycles in that graph (this is the cause of a lot
Hey,
Patrick Gerken wrote:
[snip]
Wouldn't it be possible to put them on a dedicated pypi?
pypi.support.zope.com http://pypi.support.zope.com?
Yes, but not without breaking backwards compatibility with a lot of
released buildout.cfg files, and having to arrange our own mirroring
services
Hey Chris,
What about the following alternative suggestion to alleviate some of the
underlying issues you point out.
I agree we are signaling badly which packages are interesting to
newcomers and outsiders and which packages aren't.
In part we've already done the damage with the packages in
On 12.05.09 16:49, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
That's not needed. Since the zope2-dev team is automatically
subscribed to issues, we only need to set it's contact address. If we
set that address to zope-...@lists.zope.org, then issues will
automatically be delivered to it.
Based on
The implementation details are over my head, but what SchoolTool needs
is a middle ground between one big package and a giant pile of little
ones, because our primary deployment strategy is via Linux
distribution packaging, in Debian/Ubuntu in particular.
Currently, Fabio maintains an official
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Andreas Jung andr...@andreas-jung.com wrote:
So anyone can subscribe to Zope 2 ticket changes without having
to be a member of the Zope 2 team.
Works for me.
--
Sidnei da Silva
Canonical Ltd.
Landscape · Changing the way you manage your systems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
I start being scared of using pypi.
You should be *very* afraid of depending on PyPI for softare rolled into
production. PyPI is only really useful for discovery during development.
Tres.
- --
On 5/13/09 10:34 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Chris,
What about the following alternative suggestion to alleviate some of the
underlying issues you point out.
I agree we are signaling badly which packages are interesting to
newcomers and outsiders and which packages aren't.
In part
On May 13, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
I start being scared of using pypi.
I wonder why.
You should be *very* afraid of depending on PyPI for softare rolled
into
production.
Why do you think he should be
On 13.05.09 18:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
I start being scared of using pypi.
I wonder why.
You should be *very* afraid of depending on PyPI for softare
On May 13, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
On 13.05.09 18:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
I start being scared of using pypi.
I wonder why.
You should be *very*
On 13.05.09 18:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
On 13.05.09 18:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken wrote:
I start being scared of using pypi.
I
Tom Hoffman wrote:
The implementation details are over my head, but what SchoolTool needs
is a middle ground between one big package and a giant pile of little
ones, because our primary deployment strategy is via Linux
distribution packaging, in Debian/Ubuntu in particular.
Currently, Fabio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
- We now know not to remove releases.
Not everybody does: I've seen folks *recently* re-upload a changed
release without bumping the version number; and we is a much narrower
set than the set of all PyPI maintainers.
- If you
Hey,
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
I'd hope you'd agree that given a perfect world where packaging structure
backwards compatibility was not a concern:
- The original distribution structure was a mistake.
- Changing it would be a bugfix.
I think we should've gone for an approach where
Hi there,
In the ZTK futures thread Chris McDonough pointed out that right now
we don't signal which packages are easily reusable outside of the Zope
Toolkit and which packages aren't, and need a great knowledge of the way
the Zope Toolkit works and a large amount of installed packages.
In
Hi there,
zope.app.publisher is depended on by quite a bit of code that uses the
Zope Toolkit, as it defines brower:view and browser:resource and the like.
Unfortunately zope.app.publisher currently depends on more than 60
packages. This is rather excessive, and we'd like to cut down on this.
On May 13, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
On 13.05.09 18:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Jung wrote:
On 13.05.09 18:38, Jim Fulton wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Gerken
On May 13, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
- We now know not to remove releases.
Not everybody does: I've seen folks *recently* re-upload a changed
release without bumping the version number; and we is a much
On 13.05.09 20:16, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't consider the 2 statements to be the same. I had a feeling
that that was what you meant, at least on some level.
I use PyPI when creating source releases. I use source releases
(actually binary rpms built from source rpms built from source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris McDonough wrote:
On 5/13/09 10:34 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Chris,
What about the following alternative suggestion to alleviate some of the
underlying issues you point out.
I agree we are signaling badly which packages are
Hey there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
I think we need to clarify terms / triage the sets of packages we are
talking about:
Sure, agreed, though I think we can already work with 'reusable' and
'not reusable' right now as hints to users. The 'not reusable' group
consists of 'wannabe reusable'
On 5/13/09 1:22 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
That said, given your other arguments in prior mails today, I'll give up
agitating for any packaging changes on this maillist, because it's pretty
much
impossible to argue against the article of faith that there is some presumed
majority of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
I think we need to clarify terms / triage the sets of packages we are
talking about:
Sure, agreed, though I think we can already work with 'reusable' and
'not reusable' right now as hints to users.
35 matches
Mail list logo
