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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo