Hi!
http://svn.zope.org/?view=revrev=30334 changed the behavior of
undoInfo() in a way that is not backwards compatible. See
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1822 for details.
I can see 3 ways to resolve this:
1.) restoring the old behavior of undoInfo() in ZODB
2.) restoring the old
[yuppie]
http://svn.zope.org/?view=revrev=30334 changed the behavior of
undoInfo() in a way that is not backwards compatible.
That's true, or at least off-by-one different than recent ZODB 3.2s.
Rev 30334 fixed two bugs in the implementation, so that the behavior
matched what the documentation
Heads up for the 2.8.0 final release. My plans are to make the final
release on Saturday morning. So any further changes should be done by
tomorrow at the latest.
Cheers,
-aj
pgptJAh1rk5y3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
Andreas Jung wrote:
in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the
Zope 2.8 release on hold for now. There are several open issues
related to running Zope on Windows (building, startup problems).
Since we need to have a stable source code release and a stable
windows release
--On Montag, 9. Mai 2005 14:59 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the
Zope 2.8 release on hold for now. There are several open issues
related to running Zope on Windows (building, startup
Hi,
in agreement with Jim Fulton and Brian Lloyd we decided to put the Zope 2.8
release on hold for now.
There are several open issues related to running Zope on Windows (building,
startup problems). Since
we need to have a stable source code release and a stable windows release
in sync, the
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
[snip]
Right. Here's what we could do:
1. Copy Five's interface definitions over to Zope 2.8 (mostly to
OFS.interfaces, I guess) where they are added as Zope 2 interfaces
2. Keep Five's (redudant) interface definitions. They can stay at their
status quo (status
Hi!
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the fact
that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things in
sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and should
work with
yuppie wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the fact
that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things in
sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the
fact that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things
in sync
Tres Seaver wrote:
I had a closer look at Zope 2.8's Five and I'm concerned about the
fact that Five ships with redundant interface definitions:
- redundant code is always a problem because it's hard to keep things
in sync
- the fact that Five is maintained in a different repository and
should
Hi,
last chance to commit your changes and patches and whatever for the first
2.8 beta release.
I am going to make the release over the weekend.
Andreas
pgpqN7spNbUoH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Just a reminder to myself, and a heads-up to others:
I haven't tested this, but refreshing Five products usually doesn't
work, and the same is probably true for 2.8. This needs to be tested,
and if it is so, brilliant minds need to ponder it so we can get a
solution. Or something.
--
Lennart
Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex from
Plone in Zope 2.8.
It offers some the nice extension to limit the depth of the search and
improves building navigation-trees or similar structures. Opinions?
+1 if it's a
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
from Plone in Zope 2.8. It offers some the nice extension to limit
the depth of the search and
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 20:15 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 14:49 Uhr +0200 Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I wonder if it is of public interest to include the ExtendedPathIndex
from
I have updated the Zope 2.8 wiki to reflect the planned schedule for Zope
2.8:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/Zope2.8/MilestonePlan
Since we are trying to shift towards a fixed-date schedule every Zope 2
contributor should
see this schedule as a chance and commitment to make
Hey everybody,
We're wrapping up here at a very pleasant and productive Zope 2/3/Five
sprint here in Paris. We've accomplished quite a lot, and we'll let you
hear what this is in more detail soon.
We've spent a lot of time with Zope 2.8, integrating Zope X3.0 and
Five into it.
Our work is on
Hi,
I'm posting this again is i didn't got too much feedback on the first
time (a single +1) with some meta questions:
- Is the Zope 2.8 roadmap already fixed?
- Does a proposal for the post-traverse-hook have a chance for 2.8? (The
code is here completely working on 2.7, I only need to write
19 matches
Mail list logo
