Since this particular bug should be circumventable (new word?) by
using Five 1.3.1, it's not serious enough to warrant a release by
itself, IMO.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sun Jan 8 12:01:01 2006 UTC to Mon Jan 9 12:01:01 2006 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Unit Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (errors=2) : Zope-2_8-branch Python-2.3.5 :
Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Sun
The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope branches 2.9 2.4 Linux
zc-buildbot.
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/
Build Reason: changes
Build Source Stamp: 2687
Blamelist: Zen,andreasjung,jim,oestermeier,yuppie
BUILD FAILED: failed test
sincerely,
-The Buildbot
[Jeff Kowalczyk]
What does the twice-annual release policy say about bugs and/or packaging
errors that are identified and fixed within a very short time of the
official release announcement?
I think the answer you're looking for is that the policy says nothing
about that. Every-6-months
Andreas Jung wrote:
the zLOG module will be offically deprecated in Zope 2.10 (removed in
Zope 2.12). New code _must_ use the 'logging' module of Python. And
please help
to replace all outstanding code that uses the zLOG module on the _trunk_
(which is a fun job :-|).
If that is the case
--On 9. Januar 2006 16:35:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that is the case then I intend to:
1. move the definitions of zope's specific levels (trace and blather)
into a more prominent place (ZODB also defines these levels, but it has
to be an independent package),
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging package levels. So in the end, there's no need
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Log message for revision 41225:
Sanely deprecate StructuredText by making it a facade of zope.structuredtext.
Just to make sure: we didn't lose the ReST allowed arbitrary file includes
bugfix by doing this?
Florent
--
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris,
[Andreas Jung]
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB package
that actually uses these levels.
Nevertheless, grep'ing the ZODB source for TRACE and BLATHER will find them.
TRACE is used only in modules under ZEO/zrpc/, and gives extremely verbose
output about
--On 9. Januar 2006 10:55:21 -0500 Fred Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:00:13 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Log message for revision 41225:
Sanely deprecate StructuredText by making it a facade of
zope.structuredtext.
Just to make sure: we didn't lose the ReST allowed arbitrary
On 9 Jan 2006, at 16:55, Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/9/06, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZODB defines these levels but I can not see any code in the ZODB
package
that actually uses these levels.
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging
[Fred Drake]
Nobody should be using the zLOG levels with the logging package, but
rather use the logging package levels. So in the end, there's no need
for Zope to be defining levels at all, only conventions for how the
levels are used.
The logging package supports defining as many
On 1/9/06, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
The python logging framework leaves room for numeric levels and
registering equivalent strings, and indeed ZODB and zLOG have them
defined.
I want to use them.
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently enough for me. BLATHER TRACE can be merged to DEBUG
and PROBLEM to either WARN|ERROR. This should be even enough for Zope.
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:03, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:00:13 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Log message for revision 41225:
Sanely deprecate StructuredText by making it a facade of
zope.structuredtext.
Just to make sure:
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:25, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently enough for me.
Sufficient for me is not a good reason sorry. If you don't want
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:20, Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/9/06, Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
The python logging framework leaves room for numeric levels and
registering equivalent strings, and indeed ZODB and zLOG
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:40:26 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Jan 2006, at 17:25, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. Januar 2006 17:06:25 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My point is that the python logging levels are insufficiently fine
grained.
Sufficently
Andreas Jung wrote at 2006-1-8 22:14 +0100:
...
If you deprecate zLOG could you please instruct the python logger
to output Zope style tracebacks?
Zope style tracebacks are much more informative than the stupid
Python ones.
As this is probably difficult without Monkey patching,
I
--On 9. Januar 2006 20:06:09 +0100 Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll have to check that. Support in terms of patches are welcome :-)
The Zope specific interface for logging purposes is already there:
You just want to deprecate and remove it.
_We_ want to _cleanup_ things. The
21 matches
Mail list logo
