Log message for revision 40067:
Cleaned up an old branch.
Changed:
D Zope/branches/slinkp-collector_596/
-=-
___
Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
Log message for revision 40069:
Cleaned out old branch.
Changed:
D Zope/branches/slinkp_1726_zopeundo/
-=-
___
Zope-Checkins maillist - Zope-Checkins@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-checkins
Log message for revision 40075:
- No longer try to execute directories.
Changed:
U Zope/branches/slinkp-configure_changes/configure
-=-
Modified: Zope/branches/slinkp-configure_changes/configure
===
---
Log message for revision 40091:
Don't hard-wire forward-slash into sys.path.
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/test.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/test.py
===
--- Zope/trunk/test.py 2005-11-14 04:25:55 UTC (rev 40090)
+++ Zope/trunk/test.py
Log message for revision 40092:
Don't hard-wire forward-slash into sys.path (redux).
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/test.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/test.py
===
--- Zope/trunk/test.py 2005-11-14 04:47:30 UTC (rev 40091)
+++
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a 2.9 branch by now,
but I don't see one. Is the trunk totally frozen
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
I wish you hadn't done that. We shouldn't be making the branch
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for features.
I wish
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
But yes, now that there is one, the 2.9 branch is frozen for
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
-aj
pgpwMOGS2dLXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
supposed to make the branch. I have just gone ahead and made it.
Andreas Jung wrote:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yepSear
chableText=status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Acceptedstatus%3Alist%3Aignore_
empty=Pendingclassifications%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=bugimportances%3Alis
t%3Aignore_empty=critical
Ups, I got your point. I
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to
discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I appreciate that you were trying to help.
I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
svn delete should solve that problem :-)
Of course the
--On 13. November 2005 14:55:22 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I'd like to understand the rationale for not branching at the time
if the feature freeze (Nov 1). Is it just to avoid the work of merging
changes from the branch back the HEAD during the period between the
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
Branches aka new features should be merged into the
HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable state and to be able to cut a
release branch at any time.
Yup.
What about making the banch but calling it an alpha release?
I suspect many more people would have a chance to kick the tires if they
could download binaries.
You may find some of the critical bugs actually only occur in very
specific circumstances,
or that there are other, even more critical
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 12:38 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 11:26 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I suspect there's just some miscommunication about who is actually
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 15:20 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 21:07 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
Branches aka new features should be merged into the
HEAD if they are considered to be stable. The reason for this approach but
be to have the HEAD in a reasonable stable state
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 14:55 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
...
Also, it sounds as if there's an argument being made that *everyone*
should pitch in to get 2.9 beta out the door *instead* of committing
Zope 2 feature work and the delayed
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
To create the branch or a beta release? I realize there's a desire to
tie these acts together but still don't
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:07 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 16:42 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't know if those bugs should prevent a beta or not. But there
needs to be some criteria other than feature completeness.
To create the branch or a beta release? I realize
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope releases on November 1.
OK. I thought there was going to be a
[Tres Seaver]
...
Which bugs? Sombebody needs to define this, or else risk having the
outsiders just walk away.
Insiders too ;-)
*I* know of no showstoppers: all unit tests are passing,
Not on Windows:
Windows test failures on Zope trunk
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1931
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Peters wrote:
[Tres Seaver]
...
Which bugs? Sombebody needs to define this, or else risk having the
outsiders just walk away.
Insiders too ;-)
*I* know of no showstoppers: all unit tests are passing,
Not on Windows:
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:05 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:21:08AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
This is a reminder that there will be a feature freeze for the December
Zope
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:20 -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
Note that of all the recent changes, I would jettison zpkg-based builds
*first* if our timebox is at risk; I certainly wouldn't agree with
leaving the trunk frozen due to issues with a *very* recently-proposed
change which provides no
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to
discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people
FWIW, a patched setup.py that appears to compile all known Z2 and Z3
extensions successfully (at least it completes and Zope starts) which
doesn't use any zpkg extensions is available at
http://www.plope.com/static/misc/setup.py . I took this from the old
setup.py before Phil checked in his zpkg
[Tim]
Windows test failures on Zope trunk
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1931
[Tres]
Without Windows-centric developers who are motivated to investigate and
fix those bugs, I don't know what else we can do.
[Mark Hammond]
That bugs points at
--On 13. November 2005 19:05:44 -0500 Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which bugs? Sombebody needs to define this, or else risk having the
outsiders just walk away.
*I* know of no showstoppers: all unit tests are passing, CMF-trunk runs
fine on the Zope trunk, etc.
About one week
--On 14. November 2005 02:42:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time
to discuss,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Hammond wrote:
Not on Windows:
Windows test failures on Zope trunk
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1931
CMF-trunk runs fine on the Zope trunk, etc.
Certainly agree it would help to have a specific list of what (if
anything)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Mark Hammond wrote:
Not on Windows:
Windows test failures on Zope trunk
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/1931
CMF-trunk runs fine on the Zope trunk, etc.
Certainly agree it would help to have a specific list of
--On 12. November 2005 16:53:43 -0800 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:52:28 -0800, Fernando Martins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the problem, but is it the intention that zope is not
supported on win98?
Yes, I believe this is intentional. Windows 98
Andreas Jung wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:52:28 -0800, Fernando Martins
fernando at cmartins.demon.nl wrote:
I understand the problem, but is it the intention that zope is not
supported on win98?
Yes, I believe this is intentional. Windows 98 is a seven year old OS
with insufficient
--On 13. November 2005 09:26:18 +0100 Fernando Martins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'm confused by your statement: if zope 2.8.4 is calling an NT
security function, not available in win98, then it does NOT run on
win98?? DO you mean there is something wrong with my win98 setup or that
Zope 2.8.4
ZEO 3.4.2
ZODB 3.4.2
Python 2.4.2 or 2.3.5
MySQL 4.0.20
MySQL-Python 1.2.0
MYSQLDA 2.0.9
We have just moved from Zope 2.7.6 to Zope 2.8.4 motivated, in part, but
the ability to avoid read conflicts under ZODB 3.4.2. We have been having
a lot of problems: more conflict errors,
Dennis, can you try the same thing but without recreating SESSION as a
variable of REQUEST, i.e. like this instead::
# Script (Python) setSessionVariable
##bind container=container
##bind context=context
##bind namespace=
##bind script=script
##bind subpath=traverse_subpath
##parameters=var, val
Have you considered upgrading to PostgreSQL? Things might have changed
since the last time I tried mysql but I'm pretty sure Postgresql and
psycopg deals much better with transactions in Zope. Admittedly, this
doesn't explain why you're getting into trouble just because you've
upgraded to zodb
Hi,
I've found quite a lot of doc about the Zope built-in-functions. But
very often I miss information about the args that can be passed to
the functions, e.g. manage_changeProperties. You find a description
of the function, an example passing REQUEST, but I had to guess that
you can pass a
Am Sonntag, den 13.11.2005, 14:15 +0100 schrieb Horst Jäger:
Hi,
I've found quite a lot of doc about the Zope built-in-functions. But
very often I miss information about the args that can be passed to
the functions, e.g. manage_changeProperties. You find a description
of the function, an
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
I've found quite a lot of doc about the Zope built-in-functions. But
very often I miss information about the args that can be passed to
the functions, e.g. manage_changeProperties. You find a description
of the function, an example passing REQUEST, but I had to guess
Am Sonntag, den 13.11.2005, 16:13 +0100 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
I've found quite a lot of doc about the Zope built-in-functions. But
very often I miss information about the args that can be passed to
the functions, e.g. manage_changeProperties. You find a
On 13 Nov 2005, at 16:31, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Well, except that in this case the docstring for
manage_changeProperties
is badly wrong, if you pass a mapping as first argument, it will
think
it's a request and render a page you'll never use as a result, which
slows it down a lot.
The
Hello everyone, this is from an older thread which I'm resurrecting
with more information.
Despite Dieter's helpful pointers I'm no closer to solving this
problem but do have more information about it in case anyone can lend
a hand.
To quickly recap: Periodically when visiting our zope site,
Hello,
I am having a very tough time with permissions after I have upgraded to
2.8.4 from 2.8.1, and I would really appreciate some help as I have
exhausted my imagination trying to figure what's wrong.
I have the following structure in my zope instance:
zope root
| sites
||
You probably have a network problem, all the Zope logs show everything
was completed normally (your points 1 and 3). Your problem may be tied
to packet size or keepalives. A network trace, for instance using
Ethereal, will probably help you more than anything.
Florent
Garth B. wrote:
Hello
Replying to my own post as I just found the answer to my problem (which
had nothing to do with the version of zope).
The problem was that when I mass-imported some folders to the new
instance, I didn't check to retain the ownership information; thus the
templates where executed whith the
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 01:39 -0800, Dennis Allison wrote:
Zope 2.8.4
ZEO 3.4.2
ZODB 3.4.2
Python 2.4.2 or 2.3.5
MySQL 4.0.20
MySQL-Python 1.2.0
MYSQLDA 2.0.9
We have just moved from Zope 2.7.6 to Zope 2.8.4 motivated, in part, but
the ability to avoid read conflicts under ZODB 3.4.2.
hi,
i mean to say i create one protlet and search to my MySQL database but the result is shown in non Plone page. how to i display my result in body of Plone?
please help.
thankx in advance.
bh
On 11/11/05, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 11. November 2005 14:27:49 +0700 -bhavana -
51 matches
Mail list logo
