Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
| Andrew Milton wrote:
| +---[ Stephan Richter ]--
| | Hello everyone,
| |
| | With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
| | development process and
Rob Jeschofnik wrote:
I am negative [insert some large integer here].
I absolutely could not care about Zope 2 development issues. That is why
I subscribed to Zope3-dev. Zope 2 and Zope 3 are very different animals,
and I cannot see any reason to merge their discussions.
So you think Zope 2
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Page, File, Image, Python Page, SQL Script, and ZPT Page. I suggest
that no one should be invited to create these kinds of objects in ZODB;
it's a road to misery.
I'm sorry, I simply don't agree. I find TTW development (especially with
the aid of WebDAV) _exceedingly_
Fred Drake wrote:
On 2/16/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be clear: I'm talking _only_ about merging the dev lists, _not_ the
user lists. The users lists are still largely independent, but it seems
like just about every post to the dev list now has a bearing on both
Zope 2 and
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
|
| Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a
| Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just
| like that code is to be made ZPL.
The license part is irrelevant
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Stephan Richter ]--
| Hello everyone,
|
| With the development of Zope 3, the Zope developers committed to a new
| development process and higher software quality guidelines. With the
adoption
| of Zope 3
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 04:31:03PM -0500, Stephan Richter wrote:
Hi Stephan,
This seems to me a great step forward but I am missing something.
The quality is measured by a number of metrics, but it seems nowhere is
actually measured if the software does what it is supposed to do, if it is
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
|
| | * putting a project/package under the wings of the ZF ensures long-term
| | IP protection
|
| How? I think my death + 70 years is further away than the death of ZF, or
in
| fact the death of Zope.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
tests (in doctest format)
This seems like a very random requirement for me. I'd like to see
tests that can be run with the standard test-runner, otherwise I don't
see a reason to restrict it. I find doctest greating for testing docs,
and testing longer use cases.
On Monday 20 February 2006 19:24, Martin Aspeli wrote:
My immediate concern is about resources: Who will have the time or
incentive to police the common repository and grant certification? It
seems to be a non-trivial process that may end up being quite
time-consuming. It may be perceived as
On Monday 20 February 2006 20:09, Andrew Milton wrote:
So in order to even get your Open Source package LISTED, you have to sign
over the rights of your code to Zope Corp (currently, Zope Foundation
later), and then check it into the svn respository.
Is this is correct?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
No. The common repository under the wings of ZC/ZF is just *a*
repository that implements the ZSCP. There can be others, for example
the Plone repository, the collective repository (perhaps), etc.
Correct.
I had earlier
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:55, Andrew Milton wrote:
Wow, you took the following two quotes out of context.
block quote
The Common Repository is *not* a replacement for other high-level
repositories like Plone's or ECM's. It does not aim at assimilating
everything in the wider Zope
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:30, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Anyways, you're welcome to contribute code to the z3base if you'd prefer
a public repository that doesn't require IP handover/sharing. Who knows,
perhaps we'll even manage to implement the ZSCP for some packages there :).
That
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:15, Andrew Milton wrote:
The proposal currently requires 3rd party code to be handed over to Zope
Foundation[1] AND checked into the ZF svn repository in order to be
'certified'. You indicated this was indeed the case.
That's not true. Phillip and I both negated
OK, so it is now clear from Stephans comments that thsi really is two
separate proposals, just mixed into one file because of Stephans
workload. I think we should properly split them up, because this
clearly made a lot of people confused, and I wonder if anybody that
read this proposal realized
Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:28:09 -, Stephan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have spent the last two weeks working on a proposal that defines a Zope
Software Certification Program (ZSCP) and a Common Repository that
implements
this process. The proposal is attached to
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:47, whit wrote:
what hopefully zscp would do is allow a code commons at one end (ala
collective, easy entry, friendly to experimentation) and a fully
certified set of components at the other.
In between, there would be well defined process for how software moves
On Feb 18, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
In my last project, reusing the ZMI seemed like a good idea. Maybe
that was a bad choice. Do you start with an empty site.zcml? I
haven't dared yet. :-)
We started mostly from scratch, with various successes and failures
as we tried
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:59, Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
This seems to me a great step forward but I am missing something.
The quality is measured by a number of metrics, but it seems nowhere is
actually measured if the software does what it is supposed to do, if it is
clear how it works
I hate to cross-post this, but would it be possible to limit this
discussion to a single list (e.g. zope3-dev, maybe)? I'm interested
in this topic, but my mail client isn't smart enough to filter it out
to only one place and I'm sure there are a lot of other people with
the same issue.
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be
decoupled.
The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I
decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons:
(1) Bandwidth.
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 06:09, Lennart Regebro wrote:
First, about the IP: The idea that we can use the same certification
process for different repositories and different code owners is
interesting. In that case, there could be a common
listing/certification site, covering several
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:50, Lennart Regebro wrote:
OK, so it is now clear from Stephans comments that thsi really is two
separate proposals, just mixed into one file because of Stephans
workload. I think we should properly split them up, because this
clearly made a lot of people
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:59, Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
This seems to me a great step forward but I am missing something.
The quality is measured by a number of metrics, but it seems nowhere is
actually measured if the software does
Brian Sutherland wrote:
Make sure you have a sqlos revision after 22260, as before that sqlos was
caching connections (even ones where the server has gone away).
Aha! Right! Now I understand. Thanks for the hint!
Now I only have to wait 8 hours to see if it works ;)
Did it work?
By the
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 10:33, Lennart Regebro wrote:
1. Having at least one reasonably complete usage example.
2. All code examples in the documentation should be in doctest format,
and included as a part of the standard test-run.
(Maybe you had these in there and I forgot about them,
Thanks for the answer. I only have one remaining comment, then, about testing:
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it random? It is taken straight from the conventions now used in Zope 3
for all new development. The rationale behind it is that you are forced to
document
Hi there,
a large portion of http://dev.zope.org//SimplifySkinning has been
implemented in the philikon-simplify-skinning branch. Please check it
out and give me feedback. The 'Browser Skin Names' vocabulary has not
been implemented yet. This is a no-brainer and will follow tomorrow or so.
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 11:02, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it random? It is taken straight from the conventions now used in
Zope 3 for all new development. The rationale behind it is that you are
forced to document and reason all
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Thanks for the answer. I only have one remaining comment, then, about
testing:
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it random? It is taken straight from the conventions now
used in Zope 3 for all new development. The rationale behind it is
Stephan Richter wrote:
(2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience
in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have
practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not
getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most testing I do is not about handling cases at all, it's about
testing specific functionality, making sure that old bugs doesn't pop
up again and stuff like that. Most of these tests would in doctest
format provide no documentation at
Gary Poster wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
In my last project, reusing the ZMI seemed like a good idea. Maybe
that was a bad choice. Do you start with an empty site.zcml? I
haven't dared yet. :-)
We started mostly from scratch, with various successes and
On 2/21/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, not for the average user, bit if the hypothetical six month bug
were found and those tests were decently written doctests, it would be
much easier for the maintainer to follow what the test was doing.
Maybe an example can help. Because I
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 11:59, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Well, a doctest could explain the migration test and what has changed.
Nothing changed. It's two different calendar products. It's
basically an import/export from the old calendar to the new. There is
nothing to explain.
If nothing
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/21/06, Benji York [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, not for the average user, bit if the hypothetical six month bug
were found and those tests were decently written doctests, it would be
much easier for the maintainer to follow what the test was doing.
Maybe an
On 2/21/06, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nothing changed, then you need no tests. Of course things changed. The data
structures changed. And the migration test is a wonderful opportunity to
document those data structure changes.
*sigh* Could you please try to read what I wrote?
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 12:14, Lennart Regebro wrote:
...for a maintainer. I also completely fail to see how the latter
format gives anybody any extra insight, or how this provides any sort
of documentation.
Of course this does not provide any benefit, because you did not document the
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Linux tlotze.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3171
Blamelist: andreasjung,hdima,jim,oestermeier,srichter,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
I just created mini-cms called GalleryMaker that allows a few web designer
friends of mine to easily create and maintain websites for art galleries.
It's a huge convenience for me to expose a few items TTW, like .css, some
image files, and the contact page they are likely to swap out.
Maybe this
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope3 trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin3.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 3189
Blamelist: frerich,philikon,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed failed slave lost
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 17:08 +0100, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Hi there,
a large portion of http://dev.zope.org//SimplifySkinning has been
implemented in the philikon-simplify-skinning branch. Please check it
out and give me feedback. The 'Browser Skin Names' vocabulary has not
been
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Now that this proposal has been dealt with, I will turn my focus of
attention to
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives. Since my
initial announcement of the proposal I made some minor ammendments
regarding the 'content' directive. Please
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
Yes, it works, no more 'server gone away' errors!
great!
I'll keep an eye on memory usage. Note though, that the application I'm
using sqlos for is completely read-only. I thought to understand the
memory usage issue was
Andrew Sawyers wrote:
a large portion of http://dev.zope.org//SimplifySkinning has been
implemented in the philikon-simplify-skinning branch. Please check it
out and give me feedback. The 'Browser Skin Names' vocabulary has not
been implemented yet. This is a no-brainer and will follow tomorrow or
Dominik Huber wrote:
Now that this proposal has been dealt with, I will turn my focus of
attention to
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives. Since my
initial announcement of the proposal I made some minor ammendments
regarding the 'content' directive. Please check them
On Feb 21, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dominik Huber wrote:
Now that this proposal has been dealt with, I will turn my focus of
attention to
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ReducingTheAmountOfZCMLDirectives.
[...]
I like those simplifications, but I have two little
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 09:59:11PM -0500, Gary Poster wrote:
| On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
|
| Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
| We'd have to declare the zope3-dev list for obsolete and make
| people not
| send messages to it. We'd just have to define a date and time. All
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Andrew Milton wrote:
+---[ Philipp von Weitershausen ]--
|
| Handing over ownership to the ZF and therefore having signed a
| Contributor Agreement are the terms of the svn.zope.org repository, just
| like that code is to be made ZPL.
50 matches
Mail list logo
