* Jan-Wijbrand Kolman [2010-10-06 13:39]:
> On 10/6/10 12:49 PM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
>> * Jan-Jaap Driessen [2010-10-05 18:09]:
>>> Version 0.12.2 of z3c.recipe.compattest is not compatible with recent
>>> versions of it's dependencies zc.buildout (v1.5.1), zc.recipe.egg
>>> (v1.3.2) and z
On 10/7/10 08:52 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/6/10 18:33 , Tres Seaver wrote:
>> +1 for dropping the test: if we aren't going to try to fix it to pass,
>> then scrap it. Note that I actually feel the same way about *all* the
>> every-day fail
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:50, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 10/7/10 08:52 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> For me personally the value has dropped so far that I am mostly ignoring
>> those emails. They are hard to parse to begin with and there are just
>> too many buildbot entries.
>
> Likewise. I've red
On 10/7/10 11:09 , Patrick Gerken wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:50, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 10/7/10 08:52 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> For me personally the value has dropped so far that I am mostly ignoring
>>> those emails. They are hard to parse to begin with and there are just
>>> to
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Perhaps more important is brevity. If the mail was a simple thing with a
> maximum of 15 lines or so where you can immediately see if something is
> wrong or not it would be much better. Something like:
>
> PROBLEMS
>
>
> ZTK 1.0/
On 10/7/10 11:26 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Perhaps more important is brevity. If the mail was a simple thing with a
>> maximum of 15 lines or so where you can immediately see if something is
>> wrong or not it would be much better. Som
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:28, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 10/7/10 11:26 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> +1 for a brief summary, the direct links to the build results are
>> still important though and should be somewhere in the mail
Please don't forget we also have a page that links to all buildbot
On 10/7/10 11:35 , Patrick Gerken wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:28, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 10/7/10 11:26 , Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>> +1 for a brief summary, the direct links to the build results are
>>> still important though and should be somewhere in the mail
>
> Please don't forg
Hi!
Patrick Gerken wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:50, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 10/7/10 08:52 , Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> For me personally the value has dropped so far that I am mostly ignoring
>>> those emails. They are hard to parse to begin with and there are just
>>> too many buildb
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Oct 6 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Thu Oct 7 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
There were 45 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 8 from buildbot at pov.lt, 20 from
buildbot at winbot.zope.org, 11 from ccomb at free.fr.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED : win
Hi,
I was wondering whether it's possible to use callables for schema
vocabularies without registering them first?
ie.
def my_vocab(context):
while some_constraint:
yield zope.schema.SimpleTerm()
alsoProvides(my_vocab, zope.schema.interfacesIBaseVocabulary)
class IMySch
Hi.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
> I was wondering whether it's possible to use callables for schema
> vocabularies without registering them first?
No offense, but isn't this a question for a users mailing list? It's
not really about developing Zope itself, but developing
On 10/6/10 10:27 AM, Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> On 10/6/10 9:53 AM, yuppie wrote:
>> Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
>>> This afternoon I merged the "gary-0.8.0" branch for z3c.recipe.i18n. The
>>> recipe now uses and depends on zc.buildout-1.5.1 features. I'd like to
>>> release this merge as 0.8.0 a
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
> I was wondering whether it's possible to use callables for schema
> vocabularies without registering them first?
...
> I'm sure it should be possible but my weak and feeble brain has somehow
> failed to solve the puzzle!
Have you tried using
Am 07.10.2010, 14:31 Uhr, schrieb Hanno Schlichting :
> No offense,
None taken.
> but isn't this a question for a users mailing list? It's
> not really about developing Zope itself, but developing with Zope
> isn't it?
I thought we were consolidating the mailing lists? It is a developer's
rat
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
> I thought we were consolidating the mailing lists? It is a developer's
> rather than a user's question but I would agree not related to ZTK
> development.
Another consolidation? We already tossed the zope3-dev list.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Dra
On 10/7/10 10:20 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> * Jan-Wijbrand Kolman [2010-10-06 13:39]:
>> BTW, I discussed updating the z3c.recipe.i18n for similar reasons - to
>> support newer buildout features - in a separate thread. There people
>> seemed to be +1 on releasing a recipe that declares its m
Am 07.10.2010, 14:38 Uhr, schrieb Fred Drake :
> Another consolidation? We already tossed the zope3-dev list.
This was the suggestion at the summit:
http://wiki.zope.org/ztk/ZopeSummit2010Summary
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzst
Am 07.10.2010, 14:34 Uhr, schrieb Fred Drake :
> Have you tried using a callable that provides
> zope.schema.interfaces.IContextSourceBinder?
> Looking at the code in 3.7.0 (the newest zope.schema in my egg cache),
> that should work out of the box.
Thanks for the tip. For a vocabulary it has to
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
> This was the suggestion at the summit:
> http://wiki.zope.org/ztk/ZopeSummit2010Summary
Interestingly, I can't find anything that suggests "consolidation" by
searching that page for "mail" or "list". Was that what
"IRC/mailinglist rationalis
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 10/6/10 18:33 , Tres Seaver wrote:
> > +1 for dropping the test: if we aren't going to try to fix it to pass,
> > then scrap it. Note that I actually feel the same way about *all* the
> > every-day failures: the value of the ev
Am 07.10.2010, 14:58 Uhr, schrieb Fred Drake :
> Interestingly, I can't find anything that suggests "consolidation" by
> searching that page for "mail" or "list". Was that what
> "IRC/mailinglist rationalisation" means?
Yes, that's the one.
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Cons
On 10/07/2010 03:01 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> On 10/6/10 18:33 , Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> +1 for dropping the test: if we aren't going to try to fix it to pass,
>>> then scrap it. Note that I actually feel the same way about *all
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 01:58:31PM +0200, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote:
> Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
> Period Wed Oct 6 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Thu Oct 7 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
> There were 45 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 8 from buildbot at pov.lt, 20 from
> buildbot at winbot.zope.org,
24 matches
Mail list logo
