On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 06:14:23PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> 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 br
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 00:14, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Maybe the short-term fix would be to add a shim package (reviving
> 'zope.app.dublincore', maybe) whose only job in life is to make those
> permissions loadable. Maybe the package ships with some code to help
> write the evolve script, or someth
-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
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
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
