On 26.06.2007, at 21:44, Gary Poster wrote:

On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bernd Dorn wrote:

On 23.06.2007, at 12:38, Christian Theune wrote:

Am Samstag, den 23.06.2007, 07:04 -0400 schrieb Gary Poster:
Hey Christian.  I intend to check in some code that fixes
zope.app.keyreference conflict error issues I wrote about last week. This will take advantage of some code that I checked in to the ZODB,
that I don't intend to be part of ZODB 3.8--so I don't intend my
zope.app.keyreference changes to be part of Zope 3.4.

The zope.app.keyreference package has not yet branched.  In your
capacity as release manager, would you mind if I did that, so I could
make a 3.5 dev checkin/egg?  Also, I'm a bit confused on our
preference now: would this be 3.5.0-dev or 3.5.0a1-dev, or what?

Yes. And if you're at it, I'd welcome if you'd switch the tree's trunk
to use that branch. :)

The trunk's setup.py of the satellite should either be 3.5.0a1 or 3.5.0.

i think as long the package has a dev dependency like ZODB 3.9 it should at least have alpha or beta status

Hi Bernd.


because it pulls in software that has development status like zodb 3.9 and the release of 3.9 will take at least a half a year from now on imho.

gary, is it possible to be compatible to 3.8 too?

Not productively. We could have "if the PersistentReference doesn't have the 3.9 stuff then just refuse to do a ConflictError" but then that's no different that the keyreference 3.4 behavior. Heh, actually, that's effectively the behavior we probably have now for keyreference 3.5dev running against ZODB 3.8, since errors in the conflict resolution will simply cause the resolution to fail, and the 3.5dev changes would generate AttributeErrors against ZODB 3.8 during conflict resolution.

So...it would be a bit of a lie to claim to be compatible with 3.8. The changes are useless without the 3.9 changes. But the code *should* technically work with the same restrictions we have now. That said, I don't really want to support the changes against 3.8.

...I could move the releases to our ZC download location, rather than the zope.org one, if folks want...

i don't think that this is a good idea, for example our company uses both of the download locations

What's the problem? I'm happy to help, especially if it doesn't take too much time, and you can wait a day or two.

ok, i think if another new feature is implemented in keyreference and we want this feature for zodb3.8 we have to do a version inbetween, so if you call this a 3.5 release, what should that other version be? 3.6

we use egg based releases and if you hardcode the zodb 3.9 dependency in setup.py we have to switch to zodb3.9 just because of that package if we want to use a new feature of it

maybe i am anticipating here and it's best to make it zodb 3.8 compatible when we need a newer version of keyreference for some reason. the problem with this is, that we (zope committers) can do this, but another company may not be able to change the package.


Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to