-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Last december Hanno made progress on the ZTK's dependency structure,
>> removing a lot of dependencies on packages. In his enthusiasm, he
>> unilaterally just rem
Hi there,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Last december Hanno made progress on the ZTK's dependency structure,
>> removing a lot of dependencies on packages. In his enthusiasm, he
>> unilaterally just remove
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Last december Hanno made progress on the ZTK's dependency structure,
> removing a lot of dependencies on packages. In his enthusiasm, he
> unilaterally just removed all those suddenly-unneeded (by him!) packages
> from the ZTK, without discu
Charlie Clark wrote:
> FWIW this is a very poor
> strategy to win people over to your point of view.
I'm not trying to win over people to my point of view. I tried that last
year, but people just forked when they couldn't work it out with me.
I've learned that rash actions without consideratio
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> I expect to see Zope2 trunk move to using the ZTK versions list quite
> soon: more than that, I'm willing to to the work to see that it happens
> (verifying that everything passes / works with the change), and give
> Hanno the patch to make it so, assuming he does
Am 03.05.2010, 19:59 Uhr, schrieb Martijn Faassen :
> I haven't seen a plausible reason why the fork should be necessary. It
> just uses some updated versions of packages (mostly bugfix releases)
> that would have been updated in the ZTK as well if people had bothered
> to update them.
Maartijn,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 18:09, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Hanno is making releases of packages in the ZTK. So it's not just
>>> Hanno's waste of time; it's mine too.
>
Hi there,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 18:09, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hanno is making releases of packages in the ZTK. So it's not just
>> Hanno's waste of time; it's mine too.
>
> Obviously he shouldn't hurt the main ZTK in any way. That woul
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 18:09, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno is making releases of packages in the ZTK. So it's not just
> Hanno's waste of time; it's mine too.
Obviously he shouldn't hurt the main ZTK in any way. That would be a
problem (even if i missed this incident completely and hence dn't
u
On 4 May 2010 00:09, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno is making releases of packages in the ZTK. So it's not just
> Hanno's waste of time; it's mine too. That's where I was coming from
> when this discussion started. It didn't help that the action of making
> the fork really hurt me at the time - I
Hi there,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I don't know anything about the fork, but my view of the fork is that
> of Hanno wants a fork, Hanno can have a fork, as long as he doesn't
> try to poke anyones eye out with it. If it's a stupid waste of time,
> it's Hannos stupi
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 17:30, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Answers like "read the mailing list archives" and "we're working on it"
> are legitimate sometimes. But they're also all too easily the answers of
> a bureaucracy that's stalling things as bureaucracies do. They're not
> very useful in a const
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 15:41, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Well, I'm disappointed in the zope documentation process then. Work faster!
>
> :)
>
>> If you don't inform people about this release manager team thingy, you
>> can't rightly expect people like me to care about it.
Alex Clark wrote:
> On 2010-05-03, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 5/3/10 15:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 13:22, Martijn Faassen
wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> If we're going to make cheap shots: that's still a lot faster than the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 15:41, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Well, I'm disappointed in the zope documentation process then. Work faster!
:)
> If you don't inform people about this release manager team thingy, you
> can't rightly expect people like me to care about it.
Heh. Martijn, I understand you a
On 2010-05-03, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 5/3/10 15:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 13:22, Martijn Faassen
>>> wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> If we're going to make cheap shots: that's still a lot faster than the
> grok release cycle.
G
On 5/3/10 15:41 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. I meant the ZTK release manage group, not the now
defunct ZTK steering group,
>>
>> Well, if it's defunct or not is up
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> Sorry, my mistake. I meant the ZTK release manage group, not the now
>>> defunct ZTK steering group,
>
> Well, if it's defunct or not is up to the members of the steering
> group. The stee
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 13:22, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Sorry, my mistake. I meant the ZTK release manage group, not the now
>> defunct ZTK steering group,
Well, if it's defunct or not is up to the members of the steering
group. The steering group created itself, and may
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake. I meant the ZTK release manage group, not the now
> defunct ZTK steering group,
If it's defunct someone better update the documentation.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
https:/
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 5/3/10 12:52 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> I suggest that we wait impatiently for the ZTK steering committee to
>>> come up with a useful policy instead of trying to do their work when
>>> none of us volunteered for the task.
>> I don't underst
On 5/3/10 13:07 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> On 5/3/10 12:51 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Can we please not rehash an old discussion or make this personal? This
has all been discussed too often already.
>>> As far as I know, I've *never* di
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 5/3/10 12:51 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> Can we please not rehash an old discussion or make this personal? This
>>> has all been discussed too often already.
>> As far as I know, I've *never* discussed this fork on this list, but I
>> might b
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
> Why is this in a separate .cfg unlike the other tools that come with the
> ZTK? Unless creating this extra script is very expensive, I think it
> makes sense to generate it in 'bin' along with the rest of the scripts.
To expand on that, it'd be nice if it were als
On 5/3/10 12:52 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I suggest that we wait impatiently for the ZTK steering committee to
>> come up with a useful policy instead of trying to do their work when
>> none of us volunteered for the task.
>
> I don't understand your suggestion. Could yo
On 5/3/10 12:51 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Can we please not rehash an old discussion or make this personal? This
>> has all been discussed too often already.
>
> As far as I know, I've *never* discussed this fork on this list, but I
> might be wrong; feel free to dig the
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I suggest that we wait impatiently for the ZTK steering committee to
> come up with a useful policy instead of trying to do their work when
> none of us volunteered for the task.
I don't understand your suggestion. Could you rephrase it?
I'm a ZTK user, and I'm dissati
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can we please not rehash an old discussion or make this personal? This
> has all been discussed too often already.
As far as I know, I've *never* discussed this fork on this list, but I
might be wrong; feel free to dig the archives. But that doesn't matter:
the fork is
On 5/3/10 12:34 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> I expect us to define the process around package releases and updating
>> the ZTK. It's not entirely clear to me who should and who is allowed
>> to update the ZTK definition. We'll figure things out and once we ha
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> I expect us to define the process around package releases and updating
> the ZTK. It's not entirely clear to me who should and who is allowed
> to update the ZTK definition. We'll figure things out and once we have
> I'll stick to the rules.
My few cents:
I t
On 5/3/10 12:20 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Good evening :)
>>
>> If you have a specific issue with me, you might contact me in private.
>> But with your follow-ups this turned into a more general issue.
>
> No, I think this needs to be public as the ZTK is a public proje
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Good evening :)
>
> If you have a specific issue with me, you might contact me in private.
> But with your follow-ups this turned into a more general issue.
No, I think this needs to be public as the ZTK is a public project that
I care about. And you're not playing you
Vincent Fretin wrote:
> For the tool, I think I did it already. I modified one of Hanno's
> script some times ago:
> cd zopetoolkit/trunk
> bin/buildout -c checknew.cfg
> bin/python checknew.py
Cool! This tool should be documented if it isn't already.
Why is this in a separate .cfg unlike the oth
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Of course what applies to Hanno should apply to others making releases
> of packages maintained by the Zope Toolkit project as well. I think the
> ZTK leadership should figure out some kind of guidelines for this that
> people
Good evening :)
If you have a specific issue with me, you might contact me in private.
But with your follow-ups this turned into a more general issue.
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Of course what applies to Hanno should apply to others making
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 22:52, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Of course what applies to Hanno should apply to others making releases
> of packages maintained by the Zope Toolkit project as well. I think the
> ZTK leadership should figure out some kind of guidelines for this that
> people can follow.
Tha
Hi there,
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Of course what applies to Hanno should apply to others making releases
> of packages maintained by the Zope Toolkit project as well. I think the
> ZTK leadership should figure out some kind of guidelines for this that
> people can follow. Maybe someone can wri
Hi there,
Of course what applies to Hanno should apply to others making releases
of packages maintained by the Zope Toolkit project as well. I think the
ZTK leadership should figure out some kind of guidelines for this that
people can follow. Maybe someone can write a tool too to check up how
Hi there,
Hanno, can you please update the zopetoolkit and do tests there as well
when you make releases of packages maintained by the Zope Toolkit
project? Because otherwise you're just wasting my time trying to sync
things up again, and that's annoying.
Not annoying me is one good reason, bu
39 matches
Mail list logo
