On 2009-9-16 01:15, Roger Ineichen wrote:
> Hi Dan
>
> I have an issue with the latest changes in
> zope.publisher.http.py
>
> The redirect method in HTTPResponse http.py line: 880
> forces a ValueError. Because the Apache HTTP_HOST
> and the target_host to not compare.
>
> def redirect(self, locat
On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> Hi Hanno,
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Hanno Schlichting
> wrote:
>> We are down to zero-build problems for the ZTK and just one test
>> failure. This is in zope.testing in testrunner-layers-buff.txt.
>
> That smells like something
Hi
> Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] official release policy ZTK is still
> not changed
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 September 2009, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> >> On 2009-09-11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >>> Jim Fulton wrote:
> but
Hi Dan
I have an issue with the latest changes in
zope.publisher.http.py
The redirect method in HTTPResponse http.py line: 880
forces a ValueError. Because the Apache HTTP_HOST
and the target_host to not compare.
def redirect(self, location, status=None, trusted=False):
location = str(locati
Hi Hanno,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> We are down to zero-build problems for the ZTK and just one test
> failure. This is in zope.testing in testrunner-layers-buff.txt.
That smells like something Gary has touched recently.
-- Sidnei
__
On 2009-09-15, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> If you are making releases without having the CHANGES.txt open in your
> browser, then you need to put down the keyboard and back away slowly, so
> that nobody gets hurt. Reviewing / correcting the changelog (and
> comparing it with a diff from the last relea
Hi from the Grok sprint,
Jan-Jaap from thehealthagency and myself spent some time on getting
extensive buildbot coverage for the ZTK (and many other Zope things)
going. It's all three Python versions (2.4 - 2.6) on all major
platforms (Windows, Mac OS, 32-bit Ubuntu + 64-bit Ubuntu).
You can see
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I *like* the property of the "0" strategy that it makes the job of
> releasing a package a little harder: releaseing software should be a
> thoughtful, careful process, not something you do without a bit of
> hesitation and review.
Well said.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 September 2009, Reinout van Rees wrote:
>> On 2009-09-11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> Jim Fulton wrote:
but if it is, I
propose to using 0 instead of the dev of the next version. Where I've
used '0
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Gerken
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have removed that profiler for python2.6
> My understanding of the python api is, that we were using an
> undocumented feature to merge two hotshot profiler results.
> Since nobody maintains hotshot any longer, there probably won'
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 07:56:42AM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
> Generally, I'd be surprised to learn that Bzr/Launchpad were alone in
> supporting this, but they are the only ones I can vouch for. For
> instance, I'm almost positive that github also allows you to have
> multiple committers to
Hi,
I have removed that profiler for python2.6
My understanding of the python api is, that we were using an
undocumented feature to merge two hotshot profiler results.
Since nobody maintains hotshot any longer, there probably won't be
anybody adding this feature officially.
Tests on 2.6 work for
On Tuesday 15 September 2009, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 2009-09-11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Jim Fulton wrote:
> >> but if it is, I
> >> propose to using 0 instead of the dev of the next version. Where I've
> >> used '0', I've found it to be less error prone. Ir also requires less
> >> effo
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
>>
>
>> 2) Our current arrangement, as well as many others, can be
>> accomplished
>> with a DVCS. Launchpad + Bzr definitely support this. You would
>> have a
>> Launchpad team of committers, with ma
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Sep 14 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Sep 15 12:00:00 2009 UTC.
There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Sep 14 20:43:42 EDT 2009
URL: http://
On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>> In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development that we
>> currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
>> repository and distributed SCMs everyone can bran
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development
> that we
> currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
> repository and distributed SCMs everyone can branch everything, but
> with
> distributed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
in the face of organizing the ZTK 1.0 release Hanno and I ported the
open issues as blueprints to Launchpad (and added some more suggestions
along the way). You can see them here:
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/zopetoolkit
So, new proposal
On 2009-09-11, Gary Poster wrote:
> Hi. pypi advertises http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zc.zservertracelog/1.2.0
> but there is no download to be found! :-) Could whoever made the
> release add the download?
Related to the recent "1.2dev or 0" discussion where zest.releaser was
mentioned: this
On 2009-09-11, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
> Jim Fulton wrote:
>> but if it is, I
>> propose to using 0 instead of the dev of the next version. Where I've
>> used '0', I've found it to be less error prone. Ir also requires less
>> effort because it means you never have to edit the version on the
>>
Andreas Jung wrote:
> Although it is possible to use hg/bzr/svn in parallel within a project
> and a buildout, I am completely against having a mixture of SVN+HG
> or SVN+BZR within a Plone project (where Zope stuff is coming from
> BZR or HG) and the Plone stuff from SVN..if we want/need to switch
On 9/15/09 10:33 , Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 2009-09-11, Sebastien Douche wrote:
>>
>> Caution with the actual workflow, 2 differences between SVN and Hg :
>> - you cannot check out partial repository
>> - external does not exist
>
> Missing externals has been a pain point for me.
>
> There are
On 14.09.09 20:02, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>
>
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume opera
On 2009-09-11, Benji York wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Faassen
>> wrote:
>>> * I (and others) use tools to do releases (zest.releaser in my case).
>>> These tools are based on this policy. Changing the policy breaks the
On 2009-09-11, Sebastien Douche wrote:
>
> Caution with the actual workflow, 2 differences between SVN and Hg :
> - you cannot check out partial repository
> - external does not exist
Missing externals has been a pain point for me.
There are however buildout recipes that can pull in "externals"
+1
Jim
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I think it would be good if we could (eventually) separate the Zope
> Toolkit development documentation (what's published by
> docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit now) from the Zope Toolkit release documentation.
>
> Zope Toolkit de
Hey,
I think it would be good if we could (eventually) separate the Zope
Toolkit development documentation (what's published by
docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit now) from the Zope Toolkit release documentation.
Zope Toolkit dev documentation:
* aimed at people who need to *manage* the development of
27 matches
Mail list logo
