The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2421
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2421
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:15, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
With this upgrade in place I will do a new dry-run for the FSFS
backend migration tomorrow morning.
The test run ran through without any problems. Here's some stats:
- dumping the existing repository took 12 minutes and resulted in a
1.1 GB
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
Yes, this is understood.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
Perhaps more generally, how important is it that the repository reflects
the
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note that, as a developer, I have never done this and probably
never would want to do this.
How do you test 'mkzopeinstance' then? Build a release first? That's
rather cumbersome. Anyway, small point.
The only use case for this is a deployer of Zope that wants to
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
issue is a bit deeper than just a bug people want fix, even though it
presents itself
r
--On 22. Dezember 2005 12:06:09 +0100 Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
Rocky Burt wrote:
Max M wrote:
If there is another practical way to do it, that would be fine too. I
don't know about sqllite. But if it's more difficulte than dropping a
package into a directory it would be bad.
Personally I'd be a huge proponent of including SQLite in zope core.
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2423
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
The top-level directory structure on svn.zope.org appears a bit messy to
me. There we have the folders for the large projects CMF, Zope, Zope3 and
lots
modules that possibly don't belong there. Wouldn't it make sense to move
them into a dedicated Zope3-modules folder (or choose another name)?
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2424
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
robert rottermann schrieb:
Rocky Burt wrote:
Max M wrote:
If there is another practical way to do it, that would be fine too. I
don't know about sqllite. But if it's more difficulte than dropping a
package into a directory it would be bad.
Personally I'd be a huge proponent of
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2423
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
--On 22. Dezember 2005 12:32:07 +0100 Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think we should inlcude more 3rd party products into zope core
unless they are required for core funtionality. And a random database
adaptor isnt really core functionality.
Another point: with Zope 2.10
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2428
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2424
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Wed Dec 21 12:01:01 2005 UTC to Thu Dec 22 12:01:01 2005 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.1.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Wed Dec 21 21:01:41 EST
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2428
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
--On 20. Dezember 2005 16:41:37 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
But I'm not sure I understand you.
Are you saying that in order to use Basket, my product can't call
registerHelp()?
Or are you saying that when installed via
On Dec 22, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 20. Dezember 2005 16:41:37 -0500 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Paul Winkler wrote:
But I'm not sure I understand you.
Are you saying that in order to use Basket, my product can't call
I'm looking for opinions here..
The next major Zope 2 release and perhaps the next major Zope 3
release will support the loading of packages and (for Zope 2)
Products from Python Egg files. See http://peak.telecommunity.com/
DevCenter/PythonEggs for an overview.
This provides the
Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi,
for next release we plan to replace several parts with the corresponding
components from Zope 3 (e.g. ZPT´). Philipp is working on a proposal on
that issue. In addition I would like to get rid of some old stuff that
is no longer maintained and buggy:
-
Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm looking for opinions here..
The progenitor of Eggs (Phillip Eby) suggests that this is too
implicit. He suggests instead that people who install packages should
use a program which implicitly installs packages. The major difference
between this and what
--On 22. Dezember 2005 09:09:02 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit install
step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be possible to
just put eggs on your PYTHONPATH (and perhaps adjust a config
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 12:32:07 +0100 Tino Wildenhain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont think we should inlcude more 3rd party products into zope core
unless they are required for core funtionality. And a random database
adaptor isnt really core functionality.
Another
Does anyone know how to modify the bootstrap Data.fs that is installed after
a new Zope installation and how to modify the Zope Quickstart page?
-aj
pgpOQIS1FhaaI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
--On 22. Dezember 2005 15:20:27 +0100 robert rottermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I perfectly agree with both of these arguments.
However having a dead easy to use RDBMS tool is very convenient. Both
for teaching and marketing purposes.
I agree (meanwhile) but we have to sort out the
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm looking for opinions here..
The progenitor of Eggs (Phillip Eby) suggests that this is too
implicit. He suggests instead that people who install packages
should
use a program which implicitly installs
AFAIK, there is no Data.fs.in file anymore and the OFS.Application
logic creates all the objects it needs at startup time.
Quickstart text is in lib/python/App/dtml/zope_quick_start.dtml (it's
not read from ZODB at all).
- C
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:26 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
Does anyone
Chris,
what do you think about moving the current version of the ZB hosted on
plope.com back on zope.org. The quickstart page of Zope still points to the
2.6 edition. I would like to get of the 2.6 edition and call it just Zope
Book + the data of the last modification. Since we can not
--On 22. Dezember 2005 09:48:01 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
AFAIK, there is no Data.fs.in file anymore and the OFS.Application
logic creates all the objects it needs at startup time.
Quickstart text is in lib/python/App/dtml/zope_quick_start.dtml (it's
not read from ZODB
That's fine. It moved to plope.com because it was under pretty heavy
development and zope.org was (and probably still is) too slow to be
responsive when lots of writes were done. IIRC its DAV was broken
too. It's not under development at all anymore, so it can move back,
at least until
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2429
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I agree. I am also not happy with that. Unfortunately I have currently
no clue how to solve this issue (no idea about zpkg). WHat you can do
is the following:
- copy the checkout to the location where your software home should be
- run configure;
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 09:09:02 -0500 Chris McDonough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit
install
step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be
possible to
just put
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 15:20:27 +0100 robert rottermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perfectly agree with both of these arguments.
However having a dead easy to use RDBMS tool is very convenient. Both
for teaching and marketing purposes.
I agree (meanwhile) but
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Windows 2000
zc-bbwin.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2429
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Chris McDonough wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit
install step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be
possible to just put eggs on your PYTHONPATH (and perhaps adjust a
config file with requirements)?
To be honest, the explicit'ness of an
What happens if the request started by clockserver takes a long time
or hangs?
Will the next tick start a new one anyway, or will it be blocked?
Florent
--
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of RD
+33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--On 22. Dezember 2005 11:42:30 -0330 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When you mentioned before about importing sqlite into svn.zope.org, you
were talking about actually including a snapshot of sqlite inside zope
source rather than making it a build time requirement?
I really don't
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:37:22AM +0100, Dario Lopez-K?sten wrote:
+1 on this.
It is important for us in the forced to be both developer and deployer
by evil sysadmins camp.
I'm one of those guys too.
I'm sure I can learn to live with the 2.9 release layout but right now
it's just
The next tick will happen regardless, because handle invokes a
publisher thread (it doesn't block).
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
What happens if the request started by clockserver takes a long
time or hangs?
Will the next tick start a new one anyway, or will it be
Forwarding to the list for chewing... ;-)
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 10:08 AM 12/22/2005 -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
The progenitor of Eggs (Phillip Eby) suggests that this is too
implicit. He suggests instead that people who install packages
should use a
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:59:54AM -0500, Chris McDonough wrote:
Zope.org will need the latest version of BackTalk and CMFBackTalk
installed (and by latest I wouldn't worry that they're too new to
run on Zope.org, both are at least two years old).
I would like to point out to whoever
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Rocky Burt wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
The question is this: do you think there should be an explicit
install step for egg packages/Products or do you think it should be
possible to just put eggs on your PYTHONPATH (and perhaps adjust a
config file with
--On 22. Dezember 2005 10:46:42 -0500 Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What do Java people expect from jar files (I ask as a Java dope)? Do
they have a more limited scope (no dependencies, for example?)
Jar files have no dependencies.
-aj
pgpKlIVHcdQM0.pgp
Description: PGP
On 12/22/05, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jar files have no dependencies.
Well, I know you know what you mean here, but I'll elaborate since the
kids haven't started fighting yet this morning. :-)
Jar files don't have dependency metadata. They're pretty much
equivalent to zipped
Chris McDonough wrote:
What do Java people expect from jar files (I ask as a Java dope)? Do
they have a more limited scope (no dependencies, for example?)
Coming from a heavy java/j2ee background I can say that people in
java-land expect to place jar's on the java classpath (equivalent of
Fred Drake wrote:
On 12/22/05, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jar files have no dependencies.
Well, I know you know what you mean here, but I'll elaborate since the
kids haven't started fighting yet this morning. :-)
Jar files don't have dependency metadata. They're pretty
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 11:42:30 -0330 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When you mentioned before about importing sqlite into svn.zope.org, you
were talking about actually including a snapshot of sqlite inside zope
source rather than making it a build time requirement?
sqlite is public domain code, FWIW. I doubt this is incompatible
with the ZPL. It would just require an acknowledgement from ZC that
it's safe to be included in a Zope distro.
- C
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Rocky Burt wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 11:42:30 -0330
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
I'll note, FWIW, that we don't do installs from Zope 3 checkouts.
Yes, this is understood.
I think it's worth asking whether this is an important requirement.
Perhaps more generally, how important is it that the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'll note that, as a developer, I have never done this and probably
never would want to do this.
How do you test 'mkzopeinstance' then? Build a release first? That's
rather cumbersome. Anyway, small point.
In Zope3, I use bin/mkzopeinstance.
In
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
Who has the knowledge and time to fix this?
I think we need to have some philosophical agreement on what is going to
be done before we figure out who has time to fix this. I think the
issue is a bit deeper than just a bug people want fix, even
Andreas Jung wrote:
...
I am not against zpkg but I have really no idea how it works, what is
does for me and how it causes the particular trouble in this case..at
the moment zpkg is just a magic black box with some esoteric
functionalityto make it short: I need to learn what zpkg is and
Rocky Burt wrote:
Well, if we simply suck sqlite in as a build time requirement (during
the 'make' process) do we care about importing non-ZPL code into
svn.zope.org? We would only care about licensing when distributing
binaries that include sqlite, no?
will this imply that I need to have
--On 22. Dezember 2005 12:44:23 -0330 Rocky Burt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, if we simply suck sqlite in as a build time requirement (during
the 'make' process) do we care about importing non-ZPL code into
svn.zope.org? We would only care about licensing when distributing
binaries that
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2433
Blamelist: efge
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Zope-Dev
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:37:22AM +0100, Dario Lopez-K?sten wrote:
+1 on this.
It is important for us in the forced to be both developer and deployer
by evil sysadmins camp.
I'm one of those guys too.
I'm sure I can learn to live with the 2.9 release layout but right
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:51:40PM -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
The tar ball looks the same (wrt configure/make/make install).
It's the checkout that has changed.
Ah, sorry, I was talking about directory layout, and that's
a different question (and not really a big deal).
Didn't mean to go off on a
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2434
Blamelist: andreasjung
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
___
Andreas Jung wrote:
The top-level directory structure on svn.zope.org appears a bit messy to
me. There we have the folders for the large projects CMF, Zope, Zope3
and lots
modules that possibly don't belong there. Wouldn't it make sense to move
them into a dedicated Zope3-modules folder (or
On Thursday 22 December 2005 14:26, Rocky Burt wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
The top-level directory structure on svn.zope.org appears a bit messy to
me. There we have the folders for the large projects CMF, Zope, Zope3
and lots
modules that possibly don't belong there. Wouldn't it make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
Log message for revision 40981:
deprecated ZGadfly/Gadfly
Changed:
U Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt
U Zope/trunk/lib/python/Products/ZGadflyDA/__init__.py
-=-
Modified: Zope/trunk/doc/CHANGES.txt
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I've never met ppl who actually used the HelpSys so that's why I am
raising the question about the value of the HelpSys. Lots of my
co-workers work with Zope on different levels (scripters, product
developers)...I've
Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
I've never met ppl who actually used the HelpSys so that's why I am
raising the question about the value of the HelpSys. Lots of my
co-workers work with Zope on different levels (scripters, product
developers)...I've
Rocky Burt schrieb:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 22. Dezember 2005 15:20:27 +0100 robert rottermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I perfectly agree with both of these arguments.
However having a dead easy to use RDBMS tool is very convenient. Both
for teaching and marketing purposes.
I agree
Tim Peters wrote:
I'm sure Paul meant that the content of the tarball _looks_ very
different now. Change is always disconcerting. I vividly recall that
when ZODB switched to zpkgtools-based releases, we had messages from
people staring at the tarball wondering where the ZODB code was --
Jim Fulton wrote:
My suggestion is to have different README and INSTALL files for the
checkout that tell people what they can do and how to do it and to
change the install target to simply tell people that install isn't
currently supported in a checkout and to read the appropriate text
files.
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to step back and see if we can agree on what is driving the desire
for make install. I'll note that one reason is that it worked this way
before, but I don't think that that is a good enough reason to delay the
release.
I'll note one use case:
- A Zope deployer
Martijn Faassen wrote:
We should probably be holding this discussion later,
not right now, though.
Please. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation
71 matches
Mail list logo
