Christian Theune wrote at 2009-2-7 09:36 +0100:
...
According to the setuptools documentation and our experiments on the
sprint, this is supposed to work and does work:
When you declare a package to be a namespace package, it means that the
package has no meaningful contents in its __init__.py,
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
We have several ways to go:
a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in
zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to
declare ZCML extra dependencies.
+1
I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse
For now I only have the py2.5-64bit slave, but I have similar results, though
less tests:
http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/
12895 tests, 27 failures, 10 errors
I'll add other slaves soon (32bit and py2.6).
Christophe
Stephan Richter a écrit :
Hi all,
I just ran all tests over night and here
Am Sonntag 01 Februar 2009 07:51:43 schrieb Stephan Richter:
Hi all,
now that we have Zope 3.4.0 finally behind us, let's look forward. As I
said in the release notes, I am really willing to switch to a 6 months
release cycle again.
I think there are three areas that we can work on:
-
2009/2/8 Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk:
And something I wonder from time to time is if it would be possible to
integrate a recent Twisted release into Zope3, or, even better, directly use
the current twisted egg with Zope3.
The problem is that the Twisted egg doesn't contain the web2
2009/2/8 Dieter Maurer die...@handshake.de:
Each individual extra :extra is equivalent to a separate
package _extra depending on (and potentially many
other things). The extras are just a convenient way to avoid
cluttering the distribution namespace.
That said, I like a).
+1
2009/2/8 Christophe Combelles cc...@free.fr:
For now I only have the py2.5-64bit slave, but I have similar results, though
less tests:
http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/
12895 tests, 27 failures, 10 errors
I'll add other slaves soon (32bit and py2.6).
Great! BTW, can you please set the
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Sat Feb 7 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Feb 8 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 10 messages: 10 from Zope Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=6) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.5 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Sat Feb 7 21:10:33 EST
The README.txt of zc.copy says that the components, provided by this
package is apropriate for inclusion in Zope itself.
The package provides a more pluggable mechanism for copying generic
persistent objects (not only ILocation's) as well as a way to register
post-copy hooks to be executed, which
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I'ld rather not see a whole slew of extra packagse appear. I also wonder
how the extra number of packages and increasing size of sys.path
influence performance and restrictions on environments like GAE.
For environments like GAE you don't want setuptools and its magic
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in
zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to
declare ZCML extra dependencies.
-1 from me.
[snip motivation I agree
After looking at the whole copy thing for some more time, I thought
that it even makes sense to extract the object cloning functionality
to some zope.copy (or even zope.persistentcopy) package that will
contain clone and copy functions as well as ICopyHook mechanism, but
won't contain
Okay. I prepared the zope.copy package in the SVN for you to check
out what I mean. :)
2009/2/8 Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com:
After looking at the whole copy thing for some more time, I thought
that it even makes sense to extract the object cloning functionality
to some zope.copy (or even
Andreas Jung wrote:
On 03.02.2009 13:56 Uhr, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
It becomes somewhat hard and annoying to keep the old full Zope trunk
tree based on externals in sync with the Zope2 buildout and its KGS
definition and it seems I failed yesterday.
I'd suggest we reorganize the Zope
On Feb 7, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
We've recently had some discussions on where to place the
implementation
of various ZCML directives. This post is to try to summarize the issue
and analyze the options we have.
Right now ZCML directives are implemented in
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
I see no problem with starting with zope.component, but I'd consider
both naming conventions and package structure conventions in a wider
context before making the leap with zope.component, to reduce the chance
of inconsistencies in the future.
We already had a
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
Anything you'd actually be +1 on? :)
I haven't figured out yet, what I'd like to do with ZCML and
zope.configuration in general. It seems to me that ZCML is right now too
tightly bound to application configuration. Zope2 and Five need
As the author, +1 and thank you!
Gary
On Feb 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
Okay. I prepared the zope.copy package in the SVN for you to check
out what I mean. :)
2009/2/8 Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com:
After looking at the whole copy thing for some more time, I thought
On Feb 8, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/2/9 Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
As the author, +1 and thank you!
Glad to hear. I'll release the result of the merge soon.
BTW, I'd also like to make a final release of zc.copy, replacing its
code with dependencies/imports from
Hi there.
While refactoring zope.location to use the new zope.copy package, I
came on PathPersistent class in the zope.location.pickling module. It
does quite the same as old CopyPersistent, but based on object
location paths instead of ids.
I can't find any code that actually uses that class
On Sunday 08 February 2009, Christophe Combelles wrote:
For now I only have the py2.5-64bit slave, but I have similar results,
though less tests:
http://zope3.afpy.org/buildbot/
12895 tests, 27 failures, 10 errors
I'll add other slaves soon (32bit and py2.6).
Fantastic! That's great news.
2009/2/9 Stephan Richter srich...@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu:
Anyone, how close are we to a z3c.form 2.0 release?
I worked on the multi widget a little some time ago, adding
conditional add/remove buttons. However, there are still some (not too
important though) TODOs on it.
Also, there's a really
Am 08.02.2009 um 05:14 schrieb Stephan Richter:
On Saturday 07 February 2009, Michael Howitz wrote:
Changed:
U z3c.layer/tags/0.3.0/setup.py
I'll note that we retired this package in favor of
z3c.layer.minimal
z3c.layer.trusted
etc.
Thanks for clarification. After releasing
2009/2/9 Dan Korostelev nad...@gmail.com:
2009/2/9 Stephan Richter srich...@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu:
Anyone, how close are we to a z3c.form 2.0 release?
I worked on the multi widget a little some time ago, adding
conditional add/remove buttons. However, there are still some (not too
important
24 matches
Mail list logo
