Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 31 OK, 5 Failed

2010-06-13 Thread Adam GROSZER
Hello, Subject: FAILED : Zope 3.4.1 KGS / Python2.4.6 32bit linux From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Sat Jun 12 00:00:48 EDT 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-June/015152.html TS - - The KGS failure *is* a buildfailure, tied to zope.testrunner 4.0.2. Ummm, very weird. It

Re: [Zope-dev] deciding whether to do work in tpc_vote or tpc_finish

2010-06-13 Thread Chris Withers
Laurence Rowe wrote: On 8 June 2010 12:59, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote: Laurence Rowe wrote: it fails you will end up in an inconsistent state whatever. It's just that with the maildir implementation, it pretty much can't fail as it is only a rename and that should always

Re: [Zope-dev] deciding whether to do work in tpc_vote or tpc_finish

2010-06-13 Thread Chris Withers
Jim Fulton wrote: I guess my concern is that the benefits from implementing this should outweigh the cost in higher complexity. I don't think it really increases complexity all that much. I agree the potential benefit is pretty limited. I think, given the transaction packages increasing

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Charlie Clark
Am 12.06.2010, 20:58 Uhr, schrieb Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu: Comments, suggestions, more work you'd like to get into 2.13? Hi Hanno, thanks for the information. I'm a little confused by the narrative - is Plone 4.0 being held back by a Zope 2 release? As I don't use Plone I don't

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 36 OK, 8 Failed

2010-06-13 Thread Charlie Clark
Am 12.06.2010, 19:56 Uhr, schrieb Jens Vagelpohl j...@dataflake.org: I had grabbed this particular invocation somewhere on the web, its main aim is to ensure that the x86-64 architecture is always forced and not some package default that may or may not be correct. I'd second this. Apple

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Hanno Schlichting
Hi Charlie, On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Charlie Clark charlie.cl...@clark-consulting.eu wrote: thanks for the information. I'm a little confused by the narrative - is Plone 4.0 being held back by a Zope 2 release? No, Plone 4 is delayed for all the normal reasons of too many open bugs

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:29 PM, David Glick davidgl...@groundwire.org wrote: Has the process of reviewing RestrictedPython against a new Python release been documented anywhere? Not that I know of. Stephan Richter and Sidnei da Silva were the last to do these reviews, maybe they know. Hanno

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Hanno Schlichting
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote: On the whole, I would actually favor getting a 2.13.0 out even sooner than Hanno suggests, to get it used (and therefore more polished) sooner.  With the post-eggification reduction in Zope2's scope, I think a six month

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonas Meurer wrote: thus i suggest to either provide monolithic tarballs which do contain the debendencies, or change release policy for the dependencies to not break backwards compability with every minor release. I think this discussion

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Matthew Wilkes
On 2010-06-13, at 1348, Hanno Schlichting wrote: On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:29 PM, David Glick davidgl...@groundwire.org wrote: Has the process of reviewing RestrictedPython against a new Python release been documented anywhere? Not that I know of. Stephan Richter and Sidnei da Silva were

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonas Meurer wrote: hey, On 12/06/2010 Hanno Schlichting wrote: What do we have in Zope 2.13: [...] Comments, suggestions, more work you'd like to get into 2.13? another build system would be magnificent :-) the new build system in

Re: [Zope-dev] Zope 2.13 - next steps

2010-06-13 Thread Stephan Richter
On Sunday, June 13, 2010, Hanno Schlichting wrote: On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:29 PM, David Glick davidgl...@groundwire.org wrote: Has the process of reviewing RestrictedPython against a new Python release been documented anywhere? Not that I know of. Stephan Richter and Sidnei da Silva