-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 5 Aug 2007, at 20:15, yuppie wrote:
I'm supposed to do a CMF 2.1.0 release today, but the state of
these issues is unclear. Wichert, did you look at it? There are no
checkins into either CMF or GS as far as I can see. Export now
This is not what I would call placeless. My example looks like this:
<utility component="foo.bar" interface="foo.IBar"/>
'foo.bar' is the dotted name of an object in a python module, not
in the ZODB. The 'component' feature is not used by the CMF, but
GenericSetup claims to support it.
If you're speaking about something that's not even used by the CMF
then that won't be a shostopper for the CMF. For GS, IMHO, this is a
bit of an esoteric feature. I don't know any place that uses it. If
there's a decision to be made between "get the goddamn release out"
and "wait until someone figures out this piece in GS" I'll choose the
the site root:
I was able to import a snapshot that contained a componentregistry
export of this format, though.
I guess this only works with a site that has the same ID and no sub-
object with this ID. Not very reliable and confusing.
Well, I imported it into a site with a different ID. The "Components"
tab you provided shows the "old" ID, unfortunately. However, I don't
know if that makes a difference in real life or if it's just a
Can I go ahead and roll a GS 1.3.1 and then a CMF 2.1.0 using GS
1.3.1 or are there any showstoppers left?
I made a list of things that should be fixed in my opinion. But I
can't decide what is a showstopper and what isn't.
If it's not an obvious showstopper I feel it's not worth holding up
Wichert. Would you agree?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests