On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:14, Jim Fulton wrote:
> One hole I see is giving people guidance on what needs to be tested
> (and how) before a release is made. My preference would be to rely
> heavily on judgement with a few checks so as not to make things too
> heavy. This might rule out s
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Maybe grok was already trimmed down. In my case, I basically
eliminated all ZMI support (since I didn't need it). I got about 40%,
Grok is trimmed down in the sense that it doesn't depend on all
Roger Ineichen wrote:
On 02.10.2007, at 14:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok
sprint, I also
wonder why in the world are we doing major packaging
reorganizations
and releasing them as mi
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
A release of zope.dottedname was made apparently today that refers
to a CHANGES.txt but doesn't have one. Probable scenario: someone
forgot to svn add a CHANGES.txt, then didn't check out before the
tag be
Martijn Faassen wrote:
A release of zope.dottedname was made apparently today that refers to a
CHANGES.txt but doesn't have one. Probable scenario: someone forgot to
svn add a CHANGES.txt, then didn't check out before the tag before
releasing...
Right. This is actually a *common* mistake. Not
Hi all
> Betreff: Re: [Zope3-dev] major packaging reorganization
> happening in 3.4releases?
>
>
> On 02.10.2007, at 14:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok
> sprin
On 02.10.2007, at 14:25, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok sprint, I
also wonder why in the world are we doing major packaging
reorganizations and releasing them as minor 3.4.x releases? Y
On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
I agree that the develop egg case is problematic. I'd like to
think about that.
Well, I thought and I thought
I could probably arrange that develop eggs created by buildout got
their versions from the buildout spec. Something like:
On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
...
buildout setup? I've never seen that. I can't find any
documentation on it in zc.buildout.
G. Sure enough, the documentation doesn't mention it. That's an
annoying documentation bug, I'm pretty sure it was documented at
On Sep 27, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 27 Sep 2007, at 12:20 , Stephan Richter wrote:
egg_info does not validate the trove classifiers, for example. I
tried this
last night before writing this mail.
Well, to be honest, I wonder how you can mess up with the
class
Hi there,
A release of zope.dottedname was made apparently today that refers to a
CHANGES.txt but doesn't have one. Probable scenario: someone forgot to
svn add a CHANGES.txt, then didn't check out before the tag before
releasing...
This is like the third time Grok (trunk *and* the 0.10 rele
On Sep 27, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 27 Sep 2007, at 13:07 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
On 9/27/07, Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Further, anybody who finds the effort of creating a "fresh' checkout
bevore making a release too burdensome should consider
On Sep 27, 2007, at 4:45 AM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 27 Sep 2007, at 02:29 , Tres Seaver wrote:
Further, anybody who finds the effort of creating a "fresh' checkout
bevore making a release too burdensome should consider themselves
self-selected out of the "release manager" pool.
I
Hi together,
looks like zope.dottedname-3.4.1 is broken.
[snip]
Getting distribution for 'zope.dottedname'.
error: /tmp/easy_install-mLVo5d/zope.dottedname-3.4.1/CHANGES.txt: No
such file or directory
An error occured when trying to install zope.dottedname 3.4.1.Look
above this message for a
On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is also a technical issue: As long as zc.buildout and
setuptools
foolishly accept dependency links from an egg, it'll be painful to
detect accidental reliance on external repositories.
That's a good point. I wouldn't go so far as to say
On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
...
Your example:
You have release 1.1.
You start working on the next release: 1.2dev-r#.
Someone fixes a bug in 1.1 and releases 1.1.1.
With quite high probability, the bug fix should go as well into
the 1.2 development.
On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Jim,
Betreff: Re: AW: [Zope3-dev] zope.app.securitypolicy deferred
imports errors.
[...]
Yes, please do. It's up to people making changes to use some
judgement. I mentioned in that thread that when I make changes to
"core" components,
Hi Jim,
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Zope3-dev] zope.app.securitypolicy deferred
> imports errors.
[...]
> Yes, please do. It's up to people making changes to use some
> judgement. I mentioned in that thread that when I make changes to
> "core" components, I often do test against the old trunk tree
Hi Thomas
> Betreff: [Zope3-dev] Re: AW: AW: Re: AW: Are pagelets content
> providers?
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>
> > Yes you are right, that was the reason I didn't define the __init__
> > method in the interface. But I still think a IPagelet isn't a
> > IContentProvider by default. Of cors
On Oct 2, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Lennart
Betreff: [Zope3-dev] zope.app.securitypolicy deferred imports errors.
Roger Inechens split of zope.app.securitypolicy into
zope.securitypolicy cause loads of problems, because many of
the deferred imports were incorrect. I saw Stef
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:25 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok sprint, I
also wonder why in the world are we doing major packaging
reorganizations and releasing them as minor 3.4.x releases? You'd
think such a reorganization would warra
On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Maybe grok was already trimmed down. In my case, I basically
eliminated all ZMI support (since I didn't need it). I got about
40%,
Grok is trimmed down in the sense that it doesn't depend on all
Zope 3 packag
On 10/2/07, Roger Ineichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words; Right now we only test if a egg works
> within their dependency. But we don't test other eggs
> if they work with the egg we develop.
Well, first of all we need tests in the modules that the deferred import works.
--
Lennart
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Yes you are right, that was the reason I didn't define the __init__ method
> in the interface. But I still think a IPagelet isn't a IContentProvider by
> default. Of corse another class can be defined as IContentProvider and
> IPagelet. Such a class whould then provide a di
Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Probably we should say;
> "Pagelets are views which support the publisher __call__ attribute and
> provide the update/render pattern."
True.
> You are wrong here. A IContentProvider doesn't define content. A
> IContentProvider provides content. That's different.
I see di
Hi Jacob, Thomas
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Zope3-dev] Re: AW: Are pagelets content providers?
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I didn't follow this discussion closely but thought this
> needed a comment.
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>
> [snip lots of context...]
> > Did you recognize that the __init__ are different.
Hi Roger,
I didn't follow this discussion closely but thought this needed a comment.
Roger Ineichen wrote:
[snip lots of context...]
Did you recognize that the __init__ are different.
A IContentProvider defines:
def __init__(self, context, request, view)
self.context = context
self.r
Hi Lennart
> Betreff: [Zope3-dev] zope.app.securitypolicy deferred imports errors.
>
> Roger Inechens split of zope.app.securitypolicy into
> zope.securitypolicy cause loads of problems, because many of
> the deferred imports were incorrect. I saw Stefan Richter
> fixed some, and I have fixed
Hi Thomas
> Betreff: [Zope3-dev] Re: AW: Are pagelets content providers?
>
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
>
> > I was carfully skip some additional method decalration because I
> > didn't know if we gona use IPagelets without render and update in
> > other implementations.
>
> The z3c.pagelet READM
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok sprint, I also
wonder why in the world are we doing major packaging reorganizations and
releasing them as minor 3.4.x releases? You'd think such a
reorganization would warrant a 3.5 release!
What doesn't help release
Hi there,
Besides causing us a lot of problems here at the Grok sprint, I also
wonder why in the world are we doing major packaging reorganizations and
releasing them as minor 3.4.x releases? You'd think such a
reorganization would warrant a 3.5 release!
Regards,
Martijn
__
Roger Inechens split of zope.app.securitypolicy into
zope.securitypolicy cause loads of problems, because many of the
deferred imports were incorrect. I saw Stefan Richter fixed some, and
I have fixed some more.
First somebody that can make releases (which may or may not include
me, I honestly don
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
Maybe grok was already trimmed down. In my case, I basically eliminated
all ZMI support (since I didn't need it). I got about 40%,
Grok is trimmed down in the sense that it doesn't depend on all Zope 3
packages, though due to the interesting dependency structure i
33 matches
Mail list logo
