On Apr 30, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Gary Poster <gary.pos...@canonical.com> > wrote: >> I have made a beta release of zc.buildout 1.5.0. >> >> Among other changes, this release includes the ability to use zc.buildout >> with a system Python, if you use the new z3c.recipe.scripts instead of >> zc.recipe.egg for generating scripts. >> >> Changelog: >> >> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.buildout/1.5.0b1#b1-2010-04-29 >> >> In my experience, working with a system ("non-clean") Python can be fragile >> in many ways. However, this release addresses the problems I have >> encountered so far. >> >> Your feedback is welcome. I hope to make a final release sometime next week. > > There's a big problem in our ecosystem: PyPI + our various installers > don't have the concept of "beta" release. Any new release is > considered to be the latest release. > > Until it's fixed, I think we should avoid pushing any betas to PyPI, > especially zc.buildout, because many buildout instances > out there are getting upgraded automatically. Leading to a wave of > problems when there's an issue in the release. > > I propose that we "hide" the beta version on PyPI until all problems > are cleared u, so people don't auto-upgrade their buildouts.
I have done so, for zc.buildout and zc.recipe.egg. However, merely hiding them is apparently insufficient, in my tests. I am investigating other options. > Moreover, zc.buildout is very fragile to all the different setups out > there. We have been doing manual tests in the past, but we should > definitely set up some continuous integration tools. We should try, if > anyone has some time, to implement a few functional tests where > buildout would be used in various environments. > > - with/without virtualenv), > - a typical plone setup > - etc. > > Last but not least, I think this auto-upgrade feature zc.buildout > should be removed. I'd be in favor of an explicit update of this > software, rather than having zc.buildout auto-upgrading itself like > this. > > Having a system broken because a new version was pushed at PyPI is not > something we should end up with. I'm in favor of this general statement, certainly. > The auto upgrade feature should be > optional (and disabled by default IMHO, or at least asking the > question at the prompt ?). > > Regards > Tarek > > >> Gary >> _______________________________________________ >> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >> > > > > -- > Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
