On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
> > foundation will be funded by membership dues.
>
> Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have
> been postponed to the IRC chat
[Tim]
> So, best guesses (please scream where I'm wrong):
>
> - This is because service.py doesn't define a SvcShutdown method, just
> a SvcStop method,
>
> - It's a good idea to add a SvcShutdown method to service.py.
>
> - It would suffice to add
>
> SvcShutdown = SvcStop
>
> to service.
[Chris McDonough]
> ...
> The Apache Software Foundation has 9 members
> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/).
Their board of directors has 9 members, but the ASF has many more
members than that:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html
> I don't recognize all the names, but at lea
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not
companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say?
BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can ha
I found this interesting enough to look into anyway... for anybody who
is interested, here's the scoop.
CA has 2 seats out of 9 on the Plone Foundation board. Apparently
there's special treatment of these seats via
http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/special_seats which is mostly a
perk to CA
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:17:27PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Fortunately, we'll be making feature releases every 6 months,
> so this should not be a problem.
OK. Assuming the new release process works as intended, fine w/ me.
Maybe this should be clarified on the SVN / CVS FAQ pages?
--
Paul W
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:17:13 -0400 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Policy aside, I trust all of these people implicitly to do the right
thing with judging whether a feature should make it into a dot release
and I wouldn't complain any of them snuck a minor feature into one. If
one
Chris McDonough wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
>
>
>>Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not
>>companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say?
>>BTW, this is also positive for companies, since
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 13:00 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Tres Seaver]
> > Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe
> > the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification).
>
> Like that's going to change .
Over the last year Tres, Andreas, Tim
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
We have historically always ha
[Tres Seaver]
> Agreed, in theory. In practice, the usual handwave has been to construe
> the absence of the feature as a bug (with greater or lesser justification).
Like that's going to change .
> Perhaps we can be more hard-nosed about a "no new features in third-dot
> releases" policy *after*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>>> Chris McDonough wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
We have
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
...
I can't think of any open source foundation that has
company voting in the governance. There is a role for
companies, as sponsors. But, not in the governance.
Stefane pointed out the Eclipse Foundation already, so it's
a little surprising that you are still looking
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>> We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
>> that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point
My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a
subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without
cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc list (if you're allowed to post
there as well :-)
Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic,
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
Strongly agree.
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:00 -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> > We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> > that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
> > This has worked pretty we
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
> This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
Strongly agree. By my count there h
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope*
is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every
6 months
and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes
the curren
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:04 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >
>
> ...
>
> > We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
> > that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
...
We have historically always had the opportunity to introduce features
that preserve 100% b/c (like filestream iterators) in point releases.
This has worked pretty well for the last few years.
I wasn't aware of
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:12 -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
> > 2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate for a 2.8-dot release because
> > it's backwards compatible and optional. It ahould be "done" (needs a
> > bit more testing a
On 6/17/05, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rule for Zope 3 has been that the trunk needs to be stable,
> but that isn't enough. I think the rule should be that
> the trunk should be ready to make a beta release at any time.
+1e79
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
have a traversing adapter.
Stupid or brilliant? :)
--On 17. Juni 2005 10:04:41 -0400 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
- the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen
on branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is
stable. I won't b
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned
for Zope 2.9:
* blob storage, file iterators
Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
2.9. I think it'd
> > Just an idea:
> > One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
> > is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
> > adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
> > have a traversing adapter.
> >
> > Stupid or brilliant? :)
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
- the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on
branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable.
I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This wi
I rewrote ZRS's Windows service code to use the new named events set
by current versions of Zope's nt_svcutils/service.py. Overall, this
works really slick, but with a glitch: the ZRS log files suggest that
the "signal" events never get set when Windows is shutting down, they
only fire when the u
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
> - the trunk is no longer a development area. Developments must happen on
> branches and will be merged into the trunk as soon as the stuff is stable.
> I won't be acceptable to have half-baked stuff in the trunk. This will hold
> up the r
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that
these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of
things during the sprint next week.
s/with/alongside/
Sorry for my poor english.
Remember that some of us are not native eng
Paul Everitt wrote:
Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a
bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)
Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open
Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to
develop and pr
--On 17. Juni 2005 08:27:43 -0400 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this D
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this D
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
> Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not
> companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say?
> BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several
> develo
Has my message been rejected (from zope-dev) or not ?
I'm confused.
S.
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a
bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)
Eric has done some research recently on the
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 11:45 +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Then there's something I know little about, but is also believed planned
> for Zope 2.9:
>
> * blob storage, file iterators
Thanks for mentioning this. I'd like to see blob storage get in before
2.9. I think it'd be a good candidate f
Jim Fulton wrote:
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope*
is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6
months
and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes
the current
Zope 3 and a Zope 3 pa
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature releases of Zope 2 and Zope 3 every 6 months,
starting this December. I suggest a mandi
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus o
Max M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope*
is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6
months
and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the
current
Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part.
Will they h
Jim Fulton wrote:
Further, we will coordinate the releases. Essentially, *Zope*
is switching to a new release schedule. Zope will be released every 6
months
and the releases will be in two parts, a Zope 2 part that includes the
current
Zope 3 and a Zope 3 part.
Will they have the same re
On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite
a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)
Eric has done some research recently on the different successful
Open Source / Free Softwar
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what
would be in Zope 2.9.
Yup.
I'll just remind everybody that, starting with Zope 2.9 and Zope 3.2,
we are switching to time based, rather than feature-based releases.
We will make feature rel
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
except that ZC is not represented. So even if every membe
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
However, most members do not write code during their free time, do
they?
What happens when the members write code under working hours, their
respective employers must well have something to say about it?
The PF actually did research o
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
> Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
> http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
> except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote,
> how much does that vote count in th
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>>>
>>>
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:34:34 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fa
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do people think?
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:29:33 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Depending on how Zope 3.2 will be released it would be cool to have
2.9 shipped with Zope 3.2. I don#t know about the 3.2 release
schedule. Possibly we could focus on a 2.9 release in fall
(October)...
I don't expect Zope 3.2 will be released by october. Jim is talk
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation eve
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that thi
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>
>> This is really great news!
>>
>> I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
>> players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
>> vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go throug
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutr
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't
On 6/17/05, Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do people think?
Just an idea:
One thing that would be interesting and increase the Z3 compatibility
is to use traversing adapters, and then, of course, make a default
adapter that implements Zope2 traversing for objects that does not
I'd be happy if this was *all* that changed in Zope 2.9. This way
we can release Zope 2.9 in the forseeable future, like, late this
year. If Zope 3 is on track there will already be a Zope 3.2
release imminent by then, but I'm okay with Zope 2.x running a
version behind in the name of getti
--On 17. Juni 2005 11:45:49 +0200 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what
would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas:
* newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then)
* Zope 3.1 included
*
Am 17.06.2005 um 11:45 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about
what would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas:
* newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then)
* Zope 3.1 included
* Python 2.4 support
+1 althou
Hi there,
Since Zope 2.8 has now been released, we can start talking about what
would be in Zope 2.9. I have some ideas:
* newer version of Five included (whatever version is current then)
* Zope 3.1 included
* Python 2.4 support
I think these could all be accomplished without getting too a
63 matches
Mail list logo
