[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Martin Aspeli wrote: From what you're saying I deduct that Plone 2.1 favours Zope 2.7 over 2.8. Below you are suggesting that Plone 2.5 should do the same with Zope 2.8 (favouring it over 2.9). I don't understand why that should be. If one version has to be favoured at all, it should be the most recent one. That way it's made clear that the lower version (2.7, 2.8) is only still supported as a courtesy for those who don't want to upgrade right now. All other Plone developers and users should preferrably use the highest stable of Zope, otherwise Plone will continue to lag behind at least one Zope major release. I'm not the release manager, so it's not my decision, but I think the argument goes something like, Zope 2.9 hasn't lived very long, and .0 versions of Zope have a history of having subtle security and performance bugs; similarly, those who just upgraded to Zope 2.8 may not want to upgrade again just yet. 2.8 is the conservative choice, for those who want the most stable, out-of-the-box Plone. 2.9 will likely be the choice for those who want the latest and greatest features from add-on products. Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*. Conservative or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't receive bugfixes the minute I start using it... We will have to get used to the fact that Zope 2 release lines live shorter. They live for one year, to be exact. I think conservativism shouldn't extend beyond the age of Zope releases, unless the Plone people want to continue to maintain and release older Zope 2 versions on their own time. Philipp This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] CMF Collector: Open Issues
The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector (http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF). Assigned and Open jens - Discussion replies removal, [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/391 - 'CMF Default Workflow [Revision 2]' Extension broken, [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/399 mhammond - Windows DevelopmentMode penalty in CMFCore.DirectoryView, [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/366 regebro - fiveactionstool broken (Zope 2.9/3.2), [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/392 Pending / Deferred Issues - Wrong cache association for FSObject, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/255 - CMFSetup: Windows exports contain CR/LF, LF and even CR newlines, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/266 - FSPropertiesObject.py cannot handle multiline input for lines, text attributes, [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/271 - Can't invalidate skin items in a RAMCacheManager, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/343 - CMFSetup: Workflow Tool export fails with workflows which have scripts, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/373 - CMFCore.Skinnable.SkinnableObjectManager can merge skin data, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/375 - Proxy Roles does't work for a Script using portal_catalog.searchResults, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/380 - WorkflowAction deprecated warning should not printed for WorkflowMethod, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/388 - workflow notify success should be after reindex, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/389 - came_from and VIRTUAL_URL problem, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/393 - DCWorkflow - Transition Guards - Documentation Bug, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/394 - A workflow without managed permission can't be exported, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/397 - Implicitly acquiring allow_discussion in isDiscussionAllowedFor, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/398 Pending / Deferred Features - Favorite.py: queries and anchors in remote_url, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/26 - DefaultDublinCore should have Creator property, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/61 - path criteria on Topic should honor VHM, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/111 - Document.py: universal newlines, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/174 - Add condition for transition's action like other action, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/207 - Major action enhancement, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/232 - portal_type is undefined in initialization code, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/248 - CMFTopic Does Not Cache, [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/295 - Wishlist: a flag that tags the selected action., [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/301 - CMFDefault should make use of allowCreate(), [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/340 - Nested Skins, [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/377 - CatalogVariableProvider code + tests, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/378 - manage_doCustomize() : minor additions, [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/382 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [..] except perhaps if he wants to get started right now, with Plone 2.1 (though that might still run under Zope 2.9 and CMF 1.6, I hope). Well, I was tinkering a little bit with Plone 2.1 on Zope 2.9 (or the Plone-2.1 bundle to be precise) not too long ago and all in all it seemed to work. The only thing I noticed immediately was that the tests couldn't be run but I didn't investigate that because I was too busy with other things. Hopefully it was only me missing something ... Raphael Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Raphael Ritz wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: [..] except perhaps if he wants to get started right now, with Plone 2.1 (though that might still run under Zope 2.9 and CMF 1.6, I hope). Well, I was tinkering a little bit with Plone 2.1 on Zope 2.9 (or the Plone-2.1 bundle to be precise) not too long ago and all in all it seemed to work. The only thing I noticed immediately was that the tests couldn't be run but I didn't investigate that because I was too busy with other things. Hopefully it was only me missing something ... Just after sending the above I read whit's post on plone-dev announcing http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/plonents/bundles/testing/ I guess that's what I was missing. Raphael Raphael Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: using effective date to replace content?
also sprach Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.18.1004 +0100]: Traditionally I think most people use cron for that (call 'zopectl run my-update-script' assuming you are using ZEO). Yeah, I know about that, but it requires filesystem access, which is not very scalable IME. Alternatively, there is http://plope.com/software/ClockServer Interesting. now but AFAITC there is nothing CMF-specific to support time-based manipulations (not even using events at least not as long as you don't provide clock/time events like Now it's midnight, a new day has started that listeners could subscribe to. I heard Plone 2.9 is supposed to add that stuff. Can't wait! -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid/expired pgp (sub)keys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the reason the mainstream is thought of as a stream is because it is so shallow. signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP) ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: DeprecationWarnings for container events
Tres Seaver wrote: I'd like to get the CMF-trunk clean of Deprecation warnings, at least when running unit tests or starting up Zope, and those emitted by OFS.subscribers are the remaining ones I know about. How do you mean for objects to handle the case where *they* need to respond to container events. E.g., the CookieCrumbler needs to register / unregister itself as a traversal hook on its container; there is no external subscriber which should be responsible for that (unlike, say, the catalog or the workflow tool). Not if you think in term of placeful subscriber, but here the standard way is to have just a subscriber that is a function, and to do: subscriber for=.interfaces.ICookieCrumbler zope.app.event.interfaces.IObjectEvent handler=.CookieCrumbler.handleObjectEvent / from zope.app.container.interfaces import IObjectMovedEvent from OFS.interfaces import IObjectWillBeMovedEvent def handleObjectEvent(ob, event): Notification from the event service. if IObjectMovedEvent.providedBy(event): if event.newParent is not None: # here register hook elif IObjectWillBeMovedEvent.providedBy(event): if event.oldParent is not None: # here unregister hook WRT content, do you have code in hand which makes the catalog and workflow tools subscribers, so that we could rip out the 'manage_afterAdd' and 'manage_beforeDelete' from the content base class? No I haven't done that yet even in CPS (for lack of time, not because of difficulty). Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:45:14 -0800, Philipp von Weitershausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*. Conservative or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't receive bugfixes the minute I start using it... Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, and since neither the Zope or Plone teams have released anything on the actual date of the deadline so far. I think it's great that we have a somewhat reliable time-based release schedule - but all the kinks are not worked out yet. ;) -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? -aj pgpe7aRijRBT4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] Re: [z3-five] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
--On 18. Januar 2006 09:30:37 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:20:41 -0800, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On 18. Januar 2006 09:03:15 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that I'm not saying it *won't* ship with 2.9, just that we reserve the right to ship with 2.8, since the 2.9 status is still uncertain, What is uncertain (except the issues with the Windows release)? The Windows release is a big part of what makes Plone interesting to new adopters, so that is the primary one. ok In addition, I have yet to use a Zope release which didn't have serious problems in its .0 release. I'm not saying this *has* to be the case with the 2.9 release - just being realistic. ;) I agree :-) But I would like to see reasonable feedback from the Plone community about any problems with 2.9.0 to have them fixed for you in 2.9.1. -aj pgptKVZ0C.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Re: RFC: backporting including python-package-product support to support Zope 2.8
Andrew Veitch wrote: Let's put it this way: By the time Plone 2.5 is releases (if according to roadmap), Zope 2.8 is one month away from being *discontinued*. Conservative or not, I wouldn't bet on a release line that won't receive bugfixes the minute I start using it... Just so I'm clear, I've just checked the Plone 2.5 roadmap and it says it is due in 8 May this year - is it really true that Zope 2.8 is going to stop getting bugfixes in June this year? Yes. This was suggested by the Zope 2 release manager, Andreas Jung, two months ago: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2005-October/025554.html. Of course, other people are still welcome to backport fixes to the 2.8 branch and make releases themselves, but I suspect neither Andreas nor the Zope 2 developers will have the bandwidth to maintain more than three concurrent branches (Zope 2.9, Zope 2.10 and the trunk at that time). I think for those of us deploying Zope on an enterprise scale it will be pretty hard to do upgrades this frequently. I think one year is a pretty big span. Today, for example, you would not start a project on Zope 2.8. You would do it with Zope 2.9 which is going to get bugfixes until the end of 2006. Philipp ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
