Chris Withers wrote:
> Jamie Heilman wrote:
> >2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency.
> That, on its own, is not a very helpful statement ;-)
> What are the differences between 2.1 and 2.2 that you care about?

2.2 is installed on my machines, 2.1 isn't.  It might work in 2.1 for
all I know, but I'm not going to bother back-patch it even if it is
possible, I'm simply not interested in supporting old versions of
Python.  (and no, I don't run Zope 2.6.x)
> >The stock OFS/ is
> >insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included
> >patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API.  There is
> >no third thing.
> Have you got a collector issue / Fishbowl proposal anywhere that is 
> looking to get this accepted? What reasons could people have for not 
> liking this new

Yes, No, Read the collector issue.

> >$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/ to replace \
> >    ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble
> With what? This kind of comment is a bit inflamatory and not at all 
> helpful :-(

I'm just saying don't forget to add the preamble if you do check it in
over the old library.  (my doesn't have it)  Or don't.  I
don't care either way.

Jamie Heilman         
"It's almost impossible to overestimate the unimportance of most things."
                                                        -John Logue

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to