Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Sep 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Fri Sep 11 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: Thu Sep 10 20:44:45 EDT 2009
URL: http://
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Suppose you are working on an app which includes a package that depends on A
>>= 2.1 to make sure it can use a new API introduced in A 2.1. If you then
> add a develop egg for A to do some work on it things break with this policy
> because
Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Suppose you are working on an app which includes a package that depends on A
>>> = 2.1 to make sure it can use a new API introduced in A 2.1. If you then
>> add a develop egg for A to do some work on it things break wi
Hi there,
Apparently some people are using '0' instead of the next version for
packages in the ZTK.
Please do not do this for ZTK packages. The official policy for
releasing is here.
http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/releasing-software.html
It is also all right to use a tool like zest.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Alex Chapman wrote:
> >> Log message for revision 103721:
> >> keep trunk version at 0. Update changes
> >
> > I think I've seen the practic
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Apparently some people are using '0' instead of the next version for
> packages in the ZTK.
>
> Please do not do this for ZTK packages. The official policy for
> releasing is here.
>
> http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
> [snip]
>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we started
>> investigating alternatives which are better at branching and merging.
>
> Please keep up poste
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> So, could you please follow this policy for ZTK packages in SVN?
I suspect it would help if packages that are part of the ZTK have that
indicated somewhere convenient, like near where the version number is
specified in the setup.py file.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>> 3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
>
> I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate?
The current practice is that after doing a release you have to change
the
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Well, the official policy of the ZTK is still to use the 'dev' approach.
> We can't just suddenly start to use something else just like that,
> without discussion.
Absolutely. This is that discussion. :)
> In addition, if you are going t
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Apparently some people are using '0' instead of the next version for
>> packages in the ZTK.
>>
>> Please do not do this for ZTK packages. The official policy for
>> releasing is here.
>>
>> htt
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> 3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
>>
>> I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate?
>
> The current
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> Also, since I'm also in the "setup.py should be able to specify minimum
> versions" camp (admittedly unlike others, such as Benji, to my continued
> surprise)
I've gotta keep you guessing somehow. ;)
> The '0' pattern seems like a loss for m
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Benji York wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> Well, the official policy of the ZTK is still to use the 'dev' approach.
>>> We can't just suddenly start to use something else just like that,
>>> witho
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
> ...Mmm, what Marius describes works for me, I believe. I've
> definitely used that trick and showed it to others, at least. Maybe
> it worked by mistake? /me wonders if he was doing something wrong, or
> if he remembersbut doesn't take the time to try it again r
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Apparently some people are using '0' instead of the next version for
>>> packages in the ZTK.
>>>
>>> Please do not do this fo
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> Also, since I'm also in the "setup.py should be able to specify
> minimum versions" camp (admittedly unlike others, such as Benji, to my
> continued surprise)
I agree with you on this point; it's quite useful for setup.py to be
able to specif
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> * I (and others) use tools to do releases (zest.releaser in my case).
>> These tools are based on this policy. Changing the policy breaks the tools.
>
> The proposed change would ma
Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Well, the official policy of the ZTK is still to use the 'dev' approach.
>> We can't just suddenly start to use something else just like that,
>> without discussion.
>
> Absolutely. This is that discussion. :)
It'
Jim Fulton wrote:
>> * it breaks dependencies on development versions which have version
>> requirements in it (see Wichert's comments on the original thread).
>
> I'm not sure I understand this.
I think your answer is below, and your solution would be to add a == 0
to the dependencies.
>> We'
Hi there,
I was doing some thrawling of ZTK packages anyway, and this was easy.
So, it appears the following ZTK packages now follow the 'version="0"'
convention:
zope.copypastemove
zope.html
zope.app.applicationcontrol
zope.app.basicskin
zope.app.i18n
zope.app.publication
zope.app.pythonpage
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> So, could you please follow this policy for ZTK packages in SVN?
>
> I suspect it would help if packages that are part of the ZTK have that
> indicated somewhere convenient, like near where the version number is
> s
I'm guilty of causing most these packages to violate the standards,
while making their tests pass.
Jim
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was doing some thrawling of ZTK packages anyway, and this was easy.
> So, it appears the following ZTK packages now f
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:51AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> >> 3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
> >
> > I don't understand this one. Could you elaborate?
>
>
Jim Fulton wrote:
> I'm guilty of causing most these packages to violate the standards,
> while making their tests pass.
Wasn't my intent to track down the guilty, just ran into this
information and wanted to record it for posterity.
Making their tests pass is of course way more important than t
Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Benji York wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martijn Faassen
>>> wrote:
Well, the official policy of the ZTK is still to use the 'dev' approach.
We can't just suddenly start to use something els
Hey,
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:51AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
3) [no] superfluous version bumps on the trunk
>>> I don't understand this one.
On Sep 11, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:53:51AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Marius Gedminas
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:23:31PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> 3) [no] s
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:58, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi Martjin
> Hey,
>
> Christian Theune wrote:
> [snip]
>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we started
>> investigating alternatives which are bette
Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
release add the download?
Thanks
Gary
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mail
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
> Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
> but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
> release add the download?
Is it important that the same person do it? In theory, sinc
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
>> Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
>> but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
>> release add the download?
>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Alexander J Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
>>> Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
>>> but there is no download to be fo
On Sep 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Alexander J Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Alexander J Smith
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:16PM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Alexander J Smith wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Alexander J Smith
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Marius Gedminas
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:51:30
35 matches
Mail list logo
