On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:17:27PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Fortunately, we'll be making feature releases every 6 months,
> so this should not be a problem.
OK. Assuming the new release process works as intended, fine w/ me.
Maybe this should be clarified on the SVN / CVS FAQ pages?
--
Paul W
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
Strongly agree.
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:00 -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> > that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
> > This has worked pretty we
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
> This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
Strongly agree. By my count there h
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
>
> ...
>
> > We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> > that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
I wasn't aware of
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
> > 2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate for a 2.8-dot release because
> > it's backwards compatible and optional. It ahould be "done" (needs a
> > bit more testing a
On 6/17/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule for Zope 3 has been that the trunk needs to be stable,
> but that isn't enough. I think the rule should be that
> the trunk should be ready to make a beta release at any time.
+1e79
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
have a traversing adapter.
Stupid or brilliant? :)
--On 17. Juni 2005 10:04:41 -0400 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
- the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen
on branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is
stable. I won't b
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned
for Zope 2.9:
* blob storage, file iterators
Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
2.9. I think it'd
> > Just an idea:
> > One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
> > is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
> > adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
> > have a traversing adapter.
> >
> > Stupid or brilliant? :)
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
- the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on
branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable.
I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This wi
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
> - the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on
> branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable.
> I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This will hold
> up the r
--On 17. Juni 2005 08:27:43 -0400 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this D
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this D
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned
> for Zope 2.9:
>
> * blob storage, file iterators
Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate f
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this December. I suggest a mandi
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus o
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what
would be in Zope 2.9.
Yup.
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature rel
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fa
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do people think?
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall
(October)...
I don't expect Zope 3.2 will be released by october. Jim is talk
On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do people think?
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way
we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this
year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2
release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a
version behind in the name of getti
--On 17. Juni 2005 11:45:49 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what
would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas:
* newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then)
* Zope 3.1 included
*
Am 17.06.2005 um 11:45 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about
what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas:
* newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then)
* Zope 3.1 included
* Python 2.4 support
+1 althou
27 matches
Mail list logo
