-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Disclaimer: my knowledge is not complete, and my track record of writing
> emails late at night is not very good. Take this with a big grain of
> salt.
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
>
Disclaimer: my knowledge is not complete, and my track record of writing
emails late at night is not very good. Take this with a big grain of
salt.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> As the subject implies, I'm working on a package for Fedora. I've come
> across
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be progressive.
I had been considering an application use case without a zodb. Is this
the scenario that the basic publisher would facilitate?
Regards,
David
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:10 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim.
I hope this is the right list for my question related to zope.interface:
I use some (non-zope) software which uses zope.interface (currently 3.0.1).
Now there is another software which needs a newer version of zope.interface.
Is the zope.interface library (3.4) backwards compatible with 3.0.1?
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 20:09 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> speaking as the Zope 2 release manager: I am strongly opposed against
> splitting Zope yourself into different packages and modules. With Zope
> 2 depending from various Zope 3 packages (roughly 80-90) we have
> already the situatio
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 21. März 2008 19:20:46 + Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that sucks right now for the repoze.zope2 story is that Zope 2
isn't "officially" packaged in an egg-friendly form so the Repoze guys
have to repackage it. It'd be great to be able to get
--On 21. März 2008 19:20:46 + Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing that sucks right now for the repoze.zope2 story is that Zope 2
isn't "officially" packaged in an egg-friendly form so the Repoze guys
have to repackage it. It'd be great to be able to get Zope 2 released in
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier
to
do/hap
Hi,
speaking as the Zope 2 release manager: I am strongly opposed against
splitting Zope
yourself into different packages and modules. With Zope 2 depending from
various Zope 3 packages (roughly 80-90) we have already the situation to
keep track which packages belong together. This will become
As the subject implies, I'm working on a package for Fedora. I've come
across some missing dependencies, and some that are different versions.
Because of the way that Python packages are put together (shared library
environment), I'm trying to strip out everything that is not Zope
specific (e.g. m
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33:10PM +, Chris Withers wrote:
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
>>> +"""Process results of an SMTP error
>>> + returns True to indicate break needed"""
>> The standard docstring convention is to do this:
>>"""Process results of an SMTP error.
T
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier
to
do/happier, then I'm
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier to
do/happier, then I'm all for it.
I suspect the work I did a couple of wee
On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:10 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. What does this mean?
It wouldn't have any visible effect on zope.publisher. Applications
that use zope.publisher wouldn't see a change.
There would be an alternative to zope.publisher that has far fewer
dependencies and fewer feat
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thoughts? Objections?
I've caught the repoze bug, and if this makes a Repoze.zope3 easier to
do/happier, then I'm all for it.
In fact, I wouldn't mind if repoze became the official zope3 story. It
would definitely help towar
Hi Jim. What does this mean? Will the new package be a drop in
replacement for what we have without some direction on what to do with
the other bit or will it break our applications. A working publisher is
pretty essential to a functioning zope app. Does this mean the end of
deprecation warning
On Mar 21, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Benji York wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
This new package would a number of things [...]
This new package would do what to a number of things?
Gaaah. Sorry.
It would omit them. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
This new package would a number of things [...]
This new package would do what to a number of things?
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/l
I'd like reduce the barrier of entry for using the Zope 3 zope
publisher. Right now, it has quite a few dependencies setuptools,
zope.component, zope.event, zope.exceptions, zope.i18n,
zope.interface, zope.location, zope.proxy, zope.security,
zope.deprecation, and zope.deferredimport.
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Mar 20 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Fri Mar 21 12:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Thu Mar 20 21:53:34 EDT 2008
URL: http://m
20 matches
Mail list logo
