Am Dienstag, den 03.07.2007, 10:31 +0300 schrieb Gary Poster:
Christian et al:
What do you want in regards to the zope.app.session changes that rely
on the new package zope.minmax? Very briefly, the change allows the
simple zope.app.session approach to cause fewer unnecessary write
On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 03.07.2007, 10:31 +0300 schrieb Gary Poster:
Christian et al:
What do you want in regards to the zope.app.session changes that rely
on the new package zope.minmax? Very briefly, the change allows the
simple
Hi,
I see a failing test in the buddydemo both on the buildbot and on my
checkout of the trunk:
http://buildbot.zope.org/Zope3%20trunk%202.4%20Linux%
20zc-buildbot/builds/1045/test_2/0
It appears not to happen with the egg release.
Christian
___
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2007, 09:43 +0300 schrieb Gary Poster:
However, did the tree just grow a dependency on zope.minmax as well?
Yes and no. I made a zope.app.session 3.4 branch with no
dependencies on zope.minmax. That is what the tree currently uses.
The tree also
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2007, 08:57 +0200 schrieb Christian Theune:
Hi,
I see a failing test in the buddydemo both on the buildbot and on my
checkout of the trunk:
http://buildbot.zope.org/Zope3%20trunk%202.4%20Linux%
20zc-buildbot/builds/1045/test_2/0
It appears not to happen
I originally wanted $Id$ RCS keywords in module doc strings so that
we could create tools that determined run-time version information.
Unfortunately, subversion makes using this a bit difficult, as it
doesn't update this information by default.
I think that, with eggs, this isn't
On 7/4/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
+1
These have never proved anything more than distractions. Avoiding
them in the future is the way to go. Removing them
On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
I originally wanted $Id$ RCS keywords in module doc strings so that
we could create tools that determined run-time version
information. Unfortunately, subversion makes using this a bit
difficult, as it doesn't update this information by
Jim Fulton wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Jim Fulton wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
Thoughts?
+1
(Moreover Bazaar for example doesn't support this keywords yet.)
--
Dmitry Vasiliev dima at hlabs.spb.ru
http://hlabs.spb.ru
Jim Fulton wrote:
I originally wanted $Id$ RCS keywords in module doc strings so that
we could create tools that determined run-time version information.
Unfortunately, subversion makes using this a bit difficult, as it
doesn't update this information by default.
If you add the following
Christian Theune wrote:
I've made the release branch for Zope 3.4, you can feel free to start
introducing changes for Zope 3.5 into the trunk of the tree.
Now would seem to be the time to discuss the fate of the big tree. It
is entirely possible to build Zope 3 from eggs only, do we want to
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 08:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
Thoughts?
I actually use that string all the time to determine who worked on the file
last and when the work was
On Jul 5, 2007, at 8:46 AM, Baiju M wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I originally wanted $Id$ RCS keywords in module doc strings so that
we could create tools that determined run-time version information.
Unfortunately, subversion makes using this a bit difficult, as it
doesn't update this
+1
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2007 09:43, Jim Fulton wrote:
Specifically: Should I make it the default policy for buildout to
prefer final releases? I think this is the right thing to do in the
long run, however, it will cause buildouts that
On Thursday 05 July 2007 10:03, Jim Fulton wrote:
And for the case that I need the cutting edge, as long as you tell
me the
option to use for getting the latest releases, then I am fine. :-)
I'm adding a prefer-final buildout option. The value can be either
true or false. The
Stephan Richter wrote:
Having said that, I think a Zope 3 meta egg would be a good start towards
documenting how to build a Zope 3 application using eggs. Also, packages like
z3c.formdemo give further help.
I'll look into creating such a thing.
Another final issue I see here are the problems
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I personally prefer not working with the tree anymore. If people want
to keep it around, that's fine, but then they should maintain it.
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing
Jim Fulton wrote:
There's a question below that I want opinions on, so I'm forwarding this
note here that I sent to the distutils-sig. I'd prefer answers there,
but I'll take them here.
Specifically: Should I make it the default policy for buildout to prefer
final releases? I think this is
On 5 Jul 2007, at 16:45 , Christian Theune wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2007, 16:32 +0200 schrieb Philipp von
Weitershausen:
Christian Theune wrote:
I've made the release branch for Zope 3.4, you can feel free to
start
introducing changes for Zope 3.5 into the trunk of the tree.
It
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2007 09:27, Benji York wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
I've made the release branch for Zope 3.4, you can feel free to start
introducing changes for Zope 3.5 into the trunk of the tree.
Now would seem to be the time to discuss the fate of the big
On 7/5/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. Many of us have that, but it's hard to get everyone to set
that up on every machine they use.
More importantly, because that's a global setting for the Subversion
client, instead of something retrieved from the server, setting it
affects
Darryl Cousins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 19:06 +0200, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Philipp, Darryl
Betreff: Re: zope.publisher-3.4.0b1_r76188-py2.4.egg
Darryl Cousins wrote:
My buildout update the zope.publisher egg to
zope.publisher-3.4.0b1_r76188-py2.4 from
Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2007, 16:32 +0200 schrieb Philipp von
Weitershausen:
Christian Theune wrote:
I've made the release branch for Zope 3.4, you can feel free to start
introducing changes for Zope 3.5 into the trunk of the tree.
It should be noted that the 'Zope3' tree actually
On Thursday 05 July 2007 10:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'm not sure what the interaction patterns are, e.g. who's responsible
for updating the tree's pointers to newer packages. The maintainers of
those packages? They probably know best ...
I disagree. While Stephan raises a few
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
On 5 Jul 2007, at 16:45 , Christian Theune wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2007, 16:32 +0200 schrieb Philipp von
Weitershausen:
Christian Theune wrote:
I've made the release branch for Zope 3.4, you can feel free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fred Drake wrote:
On 7/4/07, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
+1
+1. The only real win for those tags was in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Wednesday 04 July 2007 08:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
I propose we stop bothering to include $Id$ strings. (Note that I'm
*not* suggesting we go out of our way to remove them.)
Thoughts?
I actually use that string all
On 5 Jul 2007, at 17:18 , Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2007 10:48, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
I'm not sure what the interaction patterns are, e.g. who's
responsible
for updating the tree's pointers to newer packages. The
maintainers of
those packages? They probably know
On 05.07.2007, at 16:35, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
There's a question below that I want opinions on, so I'm
forwarding this note here that I sent to the distutils-sig. I'd
prefer answers there, but I'll take them here.
Specifically: Should I make it the default
31 matches
Mail list logo
