Did I forget to volunteer? I thought that was implied ;)
JJ
On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
Josh,
I think we will find going forward that this is absolutely the
case. I'm just not really willing to make that jump yet. If there
are those out there who feel confident
Josh,
I think we will find going forward that this is absolutely the case. I'm just
not really willing to make that jump yet. If there are those out there who
feel confident enough to start working on a branch of zopeskel without the
paster dependency, I'd certainly welcome it, but I'm not co
This is why I still lean very heavily toward reworking ZopeSkel so it
doesn't use PasteScript anymore. PasteScript is designed to be very
egg-centric, and IMHO ZopeSkel is out of its scope.
JJ
___
ZopeSkel mailing list
ZopeSkel@lists.plone.org
http
On 03/16/2010 11:46 AM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Chris Calloway mailto:c...@unc.edu>> wrote:
On 3/16/2010 10:37 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate here, isn't the very id
On 3/16/2010 11:46 AM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
My instinct is to swallow the --svn-repository option and notify the user that
we are doing so. We can leave it so that the option would still work if you
use 'paster create -t template_name' instead of 'zopskel template_name'.
+1
--
Sincerely,
On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Chris Calloway wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 10:37 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
> If I may play devil's advocate here, isn't the very idea that zopeskel
> would do your svn checkin for you a bit overwrought? Is it so ha
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Chris Calloway wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 10:37 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
>
>> If I may play devil's advocate here, isn't the very idea that zopeskel
>> would do your svn checkin for you a bit overwrought? Is it so hard to run
>> the template and then do svn add? The e
On 3/16/2010 10:37 AM, Chris Rossi wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate here, isn't the very idea that zopeskel
would do your svn checkin for you a bit overwrought? Is it so hard to run
the template and then do svn add? The easiest features to support are the
features you don't have, and with
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Chris Calloway wrote:
> On 3/15/2010 7:33 PM, Maurits van Rees wrote:
>
>> As for this issue, I do not use the --svn-repository argument myself; when
>> you create a package, paster creates that egg-info directory and this will
>> also end up in subversion, which
On 03/16/2010 10:13 AM, Chris Calloway wrote:
On 3/15/2010 7:33 PM, Maurits van Rees wrote:
As for this issue, I do not use the --svn-repository argument myself;
when you create a package, paster creates that egg-info directory and
this will also end up in subversion, which should never be the
On 3/15/2010 7:23 PM, Clayton Parker wrote:
Let's not forget that other communities are using paster as well. There
are django and repoze.bfg folks using it for sure. Maybe we can all work
towards the next generation set of templates.
There are django people using ZopeSkel, too. At the sprint
On 3/15/2010 7:33 PM, Maurits van Rees wrote:
As for this issue, I do not use the --svn-repository argument myself;
when you create a package, paster creates that egg-info directory and
this will also end up in subversion, which should never be the case.
Good point.
We may need to rethink the
Op 15-03-10 23:28, Cristopher Ewing schreef:
I'm good with that. I've been trying to come to some general idea for
my own satisfaction of when I can tag and release new versions, and my
thought was that using 'confirmed' status in the issue tracker as a
state for tickets I wanted to clear befor
On 03/15/2010 06:51 PM, Chris Calloway wrote:
On 3/15/2010 6:28 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
A lot of the issues that jaroel opens seem to fall into this
territory. In fact, this whole process of doing svn checkins while
creating your code skeleton seem to point to a bunch of assumptions
that ar
On 3/15/2010 6:28 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
A lot of the issues that jaroel opens seem to fall into this territory. In
fact, this whole process of doing svn checkins while creating your code
skeleton seem to point to a bunch of assumptions that are hard-coded in paster.
If that means that
Chris,
Thanks for the input. I appreciate your guidance as I get used to managing a
process like zopeskel.
On Mar 15, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Chris Calloway wrote:
> The ticket can simply document what the upstream problem is. By leaving it
> open with that documentation, it can provide a pointer t
On 3/15/2010 4:49 PM, Cristopher Ewing wrote:
If it is the case that a buildout should not have an egg-info directory, _and_
it is also the case that paster can't cope with committing a package to svn
without one, then my instinct is to reject this issue as being a problem with
paster and not
Hi all,
Here's another issue that has me stumped for the time being:
http://plone.org/products/zopeskel/issues/35
It appears that the part of paster that is trying to auto-commit the newly
created skeleton to an svn repository is assuming that there will be an
egg-info directory in the code te
18 matches
Mail list logo
