So do you think we can release 3.2.9 with the old 3.2.8 code, or should
this block the release until we have a correct fix? I'm hoping we can do
a 3.3 release in October or November, FYI.
I don't think it is worth trying to work on a fix that makes new
FieldStorage code work with Trac. Just go w
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
> So do you think we can release 3.2.9 with the old 3.2.8 code, or should
> this block the release until we have a correct fix? I'm hoping we can do
> a 3.3 release in October or November, FYI.
I don't think it is worth trying to work on a fix that makes new
FieldStorage cod
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Mike Looijmans wrote:
I think this surprised many of us, as no one on the list seems to have
thought of that use case. Trac subclasses FieldStorage to get behaviour
more in line with cgi.py. We don't have any prohibitions on subclassing,
so although we didn't foresee this us
Mike Looijmans wrote:
> Having written most of the issue "93" code, here's my opinion:
>
>> * How much non-compatibility is acceptable in a patch release?
>
> None.
> Though it hurts my personal feelings that my patch did manage to break
> something (who imagined anyone trying to hack data into t
Having written most of the issue "93" code, here's my opinion:
* How much non-compatibility is acceptable in a patch release?
None.
Though it hurts my personal feelings that my patch did manage to break
something (who imagined anyone trying to hack data into the FS object?),
we cannot break
>> * How are applications supposed to perform write operations on a
>> FieldStorage, in 3.3 and the future?
>
> Personally I never considered writing to FieldStorage. I always thought
> of it as a read-only representation of a submitted form, but then that's
> just my mental map.
It's a pretty un
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote
>> Since a 3.3 release is at least a few months away, I think we can take
>> our time and give this some careful consideration. Maybe the best plan
>> is to leave FieldStorage as-is for legacy applications and start fresh
>> on a brand new FieldStorageNG cl
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> The root of the problem is that Trac wants to be able to add extra
>> fields to a FieldStorage itself, and has been jumping through all sorts
>> of crazy hoops in the internals of FieldStorage to make this happen.
>
> Which suggests bad design in either
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>>> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
>>> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
>> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
>>
>> 3.2.x r416547 with
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>
> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
>
> 3.2.x r416547 with r393781 reverted works f
Thanks for the patch David. I'll include it for 3.2.9.
Jim
David Fraser wrote:
> I've recently been bitten by the Apache 2.0.47 requirement as mentioned
> in the following mails:
> http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-February/020280.html
> http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_pyt
I've recently been bitten by the Apache 2.0.47 requirement as mentioned
in the following mails:
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-February/020280.html
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-May/021135.html
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-May/021133.ht
+1 FreeBSD 6.1p2 / Python 2.4.3 / Apache 2.2.2
On 6/23/06, Nicolas Lehuen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Windows XP SP2, ActivePython 2.4.3, Apache 2.0.58
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/6/23, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, this time for real. :)
>
> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is availabl
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
3.2.x r416547 with r393781 reverted works fine for me
3.2.x r416548 seems t
+1 Windows XP SP2, ActivePython 2.4.3, Apache 2.0.58
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/6/23, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
OK, this time for real. :)
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing. This release
adds support for apache 2.2 as well as some other useful backports from
the dev
16 matches
Mail list logo
