-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Why should zope.dublincore be carrying BBB-water for
> zope.app.dublincore? We have plenty of precedent for having the
> zope.app. version of the package stick around *purely* for BBB: let's
> do that in this case.
Even better:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> ...
>> I disagree, pretty strongly: making code forever responsible for bad
>> old data is responsible for a lot of horrors in both Zope2 and Zope3
>> code bases. Releasing th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jacob Holm wrote:
>> Hi Michael, Tres
>>
>> I agree a new major version is required due to the new "feature" of
>> having new permission names, but there is no reason to break
>> compatibility with
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
> I disagree, pretty strongly: making code forever responsible for bad
> old data is responsible for a lot of horrors in both Zope2 and Zope3
> code bases. Releasing the packages separately allows the folks who need
> time to fix the data t
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Jacob Holm wrote:
> Hi Michael, Tres
>
> I agree a new major version is required due to the new "feature" of
> having new permission names, but there is no reason to break
> compatibility with code using the old names.
>
> IIRC the zcml-directive is there exactly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Done. The 3.6.3 release is up on PyPI:
>
> I guess I should get out more; just noticed this thread.
>
> Changing the stored permission names is a big deal. If a permission
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Done. The 3.6.3 release is up on PyPI:
I guess I should get out more; just noticed this thread.
Changing the stored permission names is a big deal. If a permission
gets stored with zope.dublincore 3.6.3, then an instance running
3.6.(0|1) c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Jacob Holm wrote:
>
>> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>> Assuming we put the 'redefinePermssion' directives in place on the
>>> trunk, why shouldn't we leave the version number as is? I consider the
>>> rename a bugfix, not a feature, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zope Tests Summarizer wrote:
> Test failures
> -
>
> Subject: FAILED: Repository policy check found errors in 670 projects
> From: ct at gocept.com
> Date: Thu Apr 22 21:15:51 EDT 2010
> URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacob Holm wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Assuming we put the 'redefinePermssion' directives in place on the
>> trunk, why shouldn't we leave the version number as is? I consider the
>> rename a bugfix, not a feature, and if we make it backwared com
Am 23.04.2010 um 15:19 schrieb Tres Seaver:
[...]
> Thanks for pointing out that directive, whose existence I had forgotten.
> Assuming we put the 'redefinePermssion' directives in place on the
> trunk, why shouldn't we leave the version number as is? I consider the
> rename a bugfix, not a featur
Hi Tres
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Assuming we put the 'redefinePermssion' directives in place on the
> trunk, why shouldn't we leave the version number as is? I consider the
> rename a bugfix, not a feature, and if we make it backwared compatible,
> there is no reason to bump the major version.
It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacob Holm wrote:
> Hi Michael, Tres
>
> I agree a new major version is required due to the new "feature" of
> having new permission names, but there is no reason to break
> compatibility with code using the old names.
>
> IIRC the zcml-directive i
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Apr 22 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Fri Apr 23 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
There were 14 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 7 from ccomb at free.fr, 1 from ct
at gocept.com.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED: Repository policy check found errors in 670
Hi Michael, Tres
I agree a new major version is required due to the new "feature" of
having new permission names, but there is no reason to break
compatibility with code using the old names.
IIRC the zcml-directive is there exactly to
provide backwards compatibility when renaming permissions.
Am 19.04.2010 um 22:21 schrieb Tres Seaver:
> Log message for revision 45:
> Renamed the ``zope.app.dublincore.*`` permissions to ``zope.dublincore.*`.
>
> Applications may need to fix up grants based on the old permissions.
>
> fixes lp:566724
>
>
> Changed:
> U zope.dublincore/trun
16 matches
Mail list logo
