Yvo,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I assume
that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
rev=40364r1=40360r2=40364
I'm in the specific situation
Hi,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure cleanup
item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I assume that was
not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
rev=40364r1=40360r2=40364
Do you know how it breaks Plone,
On 20 Dec 2005, at 13:10, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi,
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure
cleanup item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I
assume that was not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?
That CMFDynamicViewFTI doohickey (no idea what that is, really, but
Plone needs it for some reason) tries to import typeClasses from
CMFCore.TypesTool and add information about itself to it. See fti.py
module.
Ah. :)
CMFDVFTI (say that ten times fast, would'ya) is what powers the
Hi Jens!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
The following checkin on the 1.6 branch, which looks like a pure cleanup
item, completely breaks Plone 2.1 and up on CMF 1.6. I assume that was
not the intention.
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/1.6/CMFCore/TypesTool.py?rev=40364r1=40360r2=40364
I'm in
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0
have different ways to register custom type info classes. Before
that change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because
they were merged in an insane way.
I fixed the new
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0 have
different ways to register custom type info classes. Before that
change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch because they
were merged in an insane
Hi Rob! Hi Jens!
Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:53, yuppie wrote:
The intention was to make things consistent. CMF 1.5 and CMF 2.0
have different ways to register custom type info classes. Before
that change both machineries were broken on the 1.6 branch
On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
yes, i believe the agreement was to try to keep 1.6 as close to
1.5 as possible, with the exception of GenericSetup. the types
stuff is the greyest area, however, because the changes in the way
TypeInfo objects are handled btn 1.5 and 2.0 has a
Hi!
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005, at 21:56, yuppie wrote:
I really don't care much about how this is resolved. But from Rob's
checkins and the discussion following this mail
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-November/023399.html
I had the impression that CMF 1.6 should
On 20 Dec 2005, at 23:32, yuppie wrote:
After reading the thread you mention, which isn't all that clear
when it comes to outlining what the consequences of some of these
code changes are, I'm confused. I think I can boil it down to one
question: What is the use of the CMF 1.6 branch if it
Unless someone fixes that CMFDynamicsomethingFTI thing (or the CMF 1.6
branch) people cannot even attempt to run Plone 2.1 or 2.2 against CMF
1.6. This is like a stalemate. Can you suggest how to add a new kind of
factory information class similar to appending it to that typeClasses
12 matches
Mail list logo
