On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> Going from 1.2 to 1.3 is a minor new feature release.
Ok, if we're talking about changing the second number, this is fine.
The wording "in a minor release" didn't connote "between minor
releases" for me; I recognize I may just be a litt
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> If it is intended to be backwards compatible and seems to be so, I'd
>> say go with 1.3. It sounds like a new package dependency, like we have
>> had many others in minor releases.
>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> If it is intended to be backwards compatible and seems to be so, I'd
> say go with 1.3. It sounds like a new package dependency, like we have
> had many others in minor releases.
Since when were new dependencies not considered features?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I updated zc.receipe.testrunner to use zope.testrunner instead of
> zope.testing.testrunner. Initial testing has shown that this should be
> compatible, and although the code changes are minor, it's potentially
> unexpected. So should we re
I updated zc.receipe.testrunner to use zope.testrunner instead of
zope.testing.testrunner. Initial testing has shown that this should be
compatible, and although the code changes are minor, it's potentially
unexpected. So should we release it as 2.0.0 or 1.3.0?
2.0.0 seems too radical to me, but t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Log message for revision 111654:
> CHANGES.txt updated
>
> Changed:
> U zope.testrunner/trunk/CHANGES.txt
>
> -=-
> Modified: zope.testrunner/trunk/CHANGES.txt
> =
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Thu Apr 29 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Fri Apr 30 12:00:00 2010 UTC.
There were 20 messages: 6 from Zope Tests, 12 from ccomb at free.fr, 1 from ct
at gocept.com, 1 from kasumiqu at 163.com.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / P
