-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> [1]FAILED winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32
> https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052734.html
>
>
> [2]FAILED winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64
> https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052735.html
Thes
Sorry, forgot to Cc a couple of people involved in discussion and
solution included in this mail.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:33:56 -0800, Florian Friesdorf wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew, Alan,
>
> as discussed during ploneconf2011 I wrote the decorators:
> security.public
> security.private
> security.pro
Hi Matthew, Alan,
as discussed during ploneconf2011 I wrote the decorators:
security.public
security.private
security.protected
as successors to their declareX pendants.
All new code is fully covered (except a raise).
@all: please review AccessControl r123394 - r123399
security.protected('perm
This is the summary for test reports received on the
zope-tests list between 2011-11-15 00:00:00 UTC and 2011-11-16 00:00:00 UTC:
See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds.
An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our
buildbot documentation:
http://docs.zope.org/
Hi,
as you might have noticed there was a sprint and we'd like to update you
on what happened. :) Sorry if we under-communicated beforehand.
As part of the DZUG[1] sprint series[2] we tried looking into what a
refreshed ZMI for Zope 4 could be.
We started working on some code (it's really not
On 11/16/2011 11:30 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to revert the removal of the ++skin++ traverser in Zope 4.
>
> As we're working on a replacement ZMI at a sprint currently (more
> details about that in a bit) we'd like to leverage this feature.
>
> From my perspective, I value t
On 11/16/2011 04:12 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
> On 16 November 2011 12:28, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
>> wrote:
>>> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro:
>>>
Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having both
c
On 16 November 2011 12:28, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
> wrote:
>> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro :
>>
>>> Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having both
>>> confuses the heck out of me.
>>
>> Definitely a topic
Am 16.11.2011, 15:15 Uhr, schrieb Christian Theune :
> But they also have their merits. If I could make a wish, I'd like to see
> a shared implementation that marries all the benefits.
> Something I love a lot is the ++skin++ traverser for example. I also
> like the idea of "tagging" the Request
On 11/16/2011 02:06 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/16/2011 07:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
>> wrote:
>>> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro
>>> :
>>>
Right. Could we standardiz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> [1]FAILED Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux
> https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052701.html
This looks like maybe a transient network failure::
> While: Installing test. Getting distribution for
> 'zope.app.p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/16/2011 07:28 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
> wrote:
>> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro
>> :
>>
>>> Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having
>>> both confus
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53, Charlie Clark
wrote:
> Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro :
>
>> Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having both
>> confuses the heck out of me.
>
> Definitely a topic that needs (re)-opening. From a CMF point of I think
> we're
Am 16.11.2011, 12:49 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro :
> Right. Could we standardize on skins or browserlayers plz? Having both
> confuses the heck out of me.
Definitely a topic that needs (re)-opening. From a CMF point of I think
we're just about at the point where we could switch to browser laye
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:24, Laurence Rowe wrote:
> It was removed in http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/122056 because it
> wasn't actually being used anywhere. I'm not completely averse to
> adding it back, but it does create confusion with the various
> different alternatives in Zope2 like CM
On 11/16/2011 12:31 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On 16 November 2011 11:30, Christian Theune wrote:
>
>> Going down into the new ZMI project I find it to be the most
>> light-weight approach without adding an extra dependency.
>
> What is this project? ;-)
We're currently sprinting in Berlin to exp
On 16 November 2011 11:30, Christian Theune wrote:
> Going down into the new ZMI project I find it to be the most
> light-weight approach without adding an extra dependency.
What is this project? ;-)
Martin
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Hi,
On 11/16/2011 12:24 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
> On 16 November 2011 10:30, Christian Theune wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to revert the removal of the ++skin++ traverser in Zope 4.
>>
>> As we're working on a replacement ZMI at a sprint currently (more
>> details about that in a bit) we'd like
On 16 November 2011 10:30, Christian Theune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to revert the removal of the ++skin++ traverser in Zope 4.
>
> As we're working on a replacement ZMI at a sprint currently (more
> details about that in a bit) we'd like to leverage this feature.
>
> From my perspective, I valu
Hi,
I'd like to revert the removal of the ++skin++ traverser in Zope 4.
As we're working on a replacement ZMI at a sprint currently (more
details about that in a bit) we'd like to leverage this feature.
From my perspective, I value that Zope 2/4 has always made some choices
upfront that one c
20 matches
Mail list logo
