Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> btw, I think since we use buildout, it's not possible to
>> implement mixed Zope3/Five packages bacause setup has to
>> define the Five packages too. right?
>
> In general, it makes the reuse of a package difficult if it depends on
> Zope 2 stuff (incl. Five).
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Malthe Borch wrote:
> > -1 to magic or weak dependencies.
> > +1 to "test what you fly and fly what you test"
>
> I agree. In this case it would make sense to have five.jbot. If
> everyone's in favor, I can split it out like that. It's an interesting
> situation thoug
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:45:10 -0800, Malthe Borch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 to magic or weak dependencies.
+1 to "test what you fly and fly what you test"
I agree. In this case it would make sense to have five.jbot. If
everyone's in favor, I can split it out like that. It's an interesting
s
> -1 to magic or weak dependencies.
> +1 to "test what you fly and fly what you test"
I agree. In this case it would make sense to have five.jbot. If
everyone's in favor, I can split it out like that. It's an interesting
situation though because the package in question does not have any
code that
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Malthe
Betreff: [Checkins] SVN: z3c.jbot/ Initial import.
Log message for revision 81997:
Initial import.
[...]
+ >>> from Products.Five.browser.pagetemplatefile import
+ ZopeTwoPageTemplateFile
I really like what you are doing, cool ideas!
But I also have a
