Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>> This is a very recent problem and a result of Jim's inconsistent
>>>> handling of the "version.txt" matter yesterday.
>>>> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/MakingARelease says that
>>>> zope.app/version.txt should be created on a tag and
>>>> zope.app/PACKAGE.cfg should also be modified to include version.txt
>>>> *on the tag*. Jim did the latter on the Zope 3.2 branch.
>>> Yeah, I was trying to minimize the amount of work done on a tag. It
>>> didn't occur to me that this would affect Z2. :( In the future, we
>>> need to come up with a better way to handle this.
>> I wouldn't dare to mention my suggestions regarding issues like
>> these... ;)
> A common tree wouldn't make a difference here. A common release
> process would.

My feeling is that common tree => common processes. But I'm not going to
get into another discussion like we've had before, so I take your point
on this not making a difference for granted.

> Actually, a suggestion of Stephan's would make a
> difference. It would have helped someone if releases were regularly
> tested. Stephan has suggested that he'd like like buildbot to build
> releases as part of it's tests. I'd like to get there too.
> Unfortunately, we still need to resolve some technical issues to make
> this possible.

Buildbot is awesome and Stephan's suggestion is a excellent one.
However, I consider buildbot a good safety-belt, not more. It's
definitely not an excuse for not testing things properly in a local
sandbox before checking in.

Having it tested in *some* way at least, whether buildbot or not, would
already be a huge improvement, of course.

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to