Maurits van Rees wrote:
Rob Miller, on 2007-06-21:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The new GS looks very nice, but from the ZMI UI I can no longer see how
I can import only selected steps of an extension profile. I hope that is
still possible; it can be extremely useful. It looks like the import and
Maurits van Rees wrote:
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-06-23:
2. What needs to happen on the import tab now on trunk? We want a
drop down that lists all extension profiles. When I select one of
those extension profiles, should I get a list of only those steps
for which this profile has an
Rob Miller, on 2007-06-25:
it's a reasonable first pass, and it's much better than not having it there.
a better approach would be that taken by Plone, where you have the import
step
check the profile for the existence of a file with a specific name. if the
file exists, run the step, if
Rob Miller, on 2007-06-25:
all of the steps for a profile will be loaded into the setup tool
the first time you run any of the steps for that profile. what's
missing is the option of loading all of the steps from a profile
WITHOUT actually running them, so that you could run only the
Maurits van Rees wrote:
Rob Miller, on 2007-06-25:
all of the steps for a profile will be loaded into the setup tool
the first time you run any of the steps for that profile. what's
missing is the option of loading all of the steps from a profile
WITHOUT actually running them, so that you
On 6/22/07, Rob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well. I'd prefer to have *one* obvious and explicit solution. The
failover adds extra code that needs to be maintained and makes it less
obvious where the version number comes from.
i agree. i was thinking since my last reply that, since the
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-06-23:
2. What needs to happen on the import tab now on trunk? We want a
drop down that lists all extension profiles. When I select one of
those extension profiles, should I get a list of only those steps
for which this profile has an xml file?
This does
yuppie wrote:
Hi Rob!
Rob Miller wrote:
yuppie wrote:
- Why is it necessary to use version numbers from VERSION.txt? AFAICS
it does not make much sense to keep profile version numbers in sync
with product version numbers. New profiles should have an explicit
version in metadata.xml, old
Rob Miller, on 2007-06-21:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The new GS looks very nice, but from the ZMI UI I can no longer see how
I can import only selected steps of an extension profile. I hope that is
still possible; it can be extremely useful. It looks like the import and
export tab only act on
The new GS looks very nice, but from the ZMI UI I can no longer see how
I can import only selected steps of an extension profile. I hope that is
still possible; it can be extremely useful. It looks like the import and
export tab only act on the base profiels now.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman
Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Just merge and I'll take it from there.
done. sorry for the delay.
I still did not manage to look at all the changes, but I have some
questions regarding metadata.xml:
- Why is it necessary to use version numbers from VERSION.txt? AFAICS it
does
Previously yuppie wrote:
- How are profile dependencies specified, where are they used?
http://theploneblog.org/blog/archive/2007/06/21/genericsetup-improvements
suggests they are not implemented.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
The new GS looks very nice, but from the ZMI UI I can no longer see how
I can import only selected steps of an extension profile. I hope that is
still possible; it can be extremely useful. It looks like the import and
export tab only act on the base profiels now.
hmm...
yuppie wrote:
Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Just merge and I'll take it from there.
done. sorry for the delay.
I still did not manage to look at all the changes, but I have some
questions regarding metadata.xml:
- Why is it necessary to use version numbers from VERSION.txt?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jun 2007, at 06:59, Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release
tags for GenericSetup to match up with the CMF 2.1-branch and the
releases. I need to determine the current
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jun 2007, at 06:59, Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release tags
for GenericSetup to match up with the CMF 2.1-branch and the
releases. I need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jun 2007, at 06:59, Rob Miller wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release tags
for GenericSetup to
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release tags
for GenericSetup to match up with the CMF 2.1-branch and the releases. I
need to determine the current state:
Has the BBQ Sprint branch at
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release tags
for GenericSetup to match up with the CMF 2.1-branch and the
releases. I need to determine the current state:
Has the BBQ Sprint branch at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Tres reminded me that we should have a real branch and release tags
for GenericSetup to match up with the CMF 2.1-branch and the
releases. I need to determine the current state:
Has the BBQ Sprint branch at
20 matches
Mail list logo
