Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Mar 22 12:00:00 2008 UTC to Sun Mar 23 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: Sat Mar 22 21:51:54 EDT 2008
URL: http://m
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
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?
No-more so than the existing publisher.
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
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?
No-more so than the e
On Mar 23, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
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
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
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 scenar
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 23, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:54 PM, David Pratt wrote:
Hi Jim. OK great. Many thanks for elaborating. This will be
progressive. I had been considering an appli
Working on this.
tehre are some things I will get back to you about, because what you
suggest breaks the unit test code...
Cheers,
Matthew
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 23:32 +0200, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> I'm starting a new thread, because the original one got hijacked by the
> doctest/unittest flam
On Mar 23, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
No-more so than the existing publisher. I just want to make
the publisher useful for small applications that don't need
the component architecture and other facilities that
zope.publisher depends on for mostly minor reasons.
This is of c
On Mar 21, 2008, at 3:35 PM, 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 repacka
On Mar 21, 2008, at 8:59 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
but also includes a bunch of other packages. The OP might find the
following source distributions instructive:
- http://dist.repoze.org/zopelib-2.10.5.0.tar.gz contains the Zope2
packages plus the relevant Zope3 code, drawn from Zope 3.3.2. It
10 matches
Mail list logo
