Martijn Faassen schrieb:
Christian Theune wrote:
Here's an idea:

Let `develop` trump version pinning, but not any other constraints.

As far as I can see this would allow both of our scenarios to work or continue to work.

I'd be happy with that too, and was really what I was aiming at, and I think it doesn't conflict with anything else,

Right, that's why I proposed it.

but I don't see it flying given the sentiments against that idea so far. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Humm. Maybe there's just a misunderstanding. I didn't get that you wanted to only trump version pinning, not constraints in general. So there might be the chance that others had that understanding too (might be only my mistake anyway).


gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to