Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO,
it could do without the topic and version info fields.
Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be
pretty useful?
Sure, but it could go in
Hi,
Chris Withers wrote:
I thought the idea of a seperate field was to make it a mandatory
dropdown so that at least we know what version of Zope the reporter is
using...
We can know it without the drop down. Using the drop down would allow us
to query for it or to restrict the entries to
Steve Alexander wrote:
I'd be happy using launchpad too. The last link points to a discussion
that didn't have any decision in the end. I wouldn't go as far as
abandoning the old collector data.
Then I think we should stick with the current collector unless someone
comes forward to do the work
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
The Zope3 collector isn't actually *that* bad in this respect. IMO,
it could do without the topic and version info fields.
Topic I'd agree with, but I would have thought version info would be
pretty useful?
On Dec 14, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Hi,
...
Zagy and I fixed this issue, by making the methods _getCurrentValue
and _getFormValue use a common method to retrieve the input value
and handle the case of converting to the form value cleanly.
However, we are not sure, whether
Hey Michael,
Michael Kerrin wrote:
Suppose I could merge some of the changes that from that branch to get
rid of ssh_* and sftp code which should be independent of any twisted
upgrade. Then a SSL cleanup is also independent of an upgrade, come to
think about it.
Did you have any chance to
On Dec 18, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
Can somebody help me classify this issue?
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/721
I'd consider it a bug and change my original target of 3.4 to
include it
as a bugfix in 3.3 (and a backport to 3.2).
But I smell that there might be
Hi again,
Gary Poster wrote:
I don't have a very strong feeling about it, but lean towards bug
fix. It didn't break any of our code (or at least any of our
tests :-) ) so it seems safe from my perspective.
I was trying to apply the patch to the 3.3 branch and noticed that the
patch isn't
