Hi,
Should we create separate message factory in 'zope' domain for
each packages ? If so, can anyone explain why it should be like that.
Few weeks back a new message factory is created in
zope.i18nmessageid [1] . And now some packages use this directly.
I am bit confused now ...
[1] http://
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process. Philipp, would you mind separating the release process into
a separate file? Or do you mind if I do it?
Some comments on the current draft at:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/
maintain
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process.
+1
There are other improvements that might be made, but let's not let
the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This isn't perfect, so I get to suggest it.
I propose that we codify the practice of r
On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Benji York wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process.
+1
There are other improvements that might be made, but let's not
let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This isn't perfect, so I get to sugg
Jim Fulton wrote:
For example, a packaging of
MochiKit 1.3.1 might have a version # like 1.3.1-1, or, if it is
exciting enough: 1.3.1-1.1
I assume setuptools interprets version numbers like this in a reasonable
way.
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
__
Baiju M wrote:
Should we create separate message factory in 'zope' domain for
each packages ? If so, can anyone explain why it should be like that.
No. I think each package that has translations should actually use its
*own* domain and ship with the translations. In an eggified world it
doesn
On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Benji York wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
For example, a packaging of MochiKit 1.3.1 might have a version #
like 1.3.1-1, or, if it is exciting enough: 1.3.1-1.1
I assume setuptools interprets version numbers like this in a
reasonable way.
AFAIK. :)
Jim
--
Jim
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:14, Jim Fulton wrote:
One hole I see is giving people guidance on what needs to be tested
(and how) before a release is made. My preference would be to rely
heavily on judgement with a few checks so as not to make things too
heavy. This
On 10/3/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want tools! Actually, I just want one tool. 70% of the release process is
> repetition and that needs to be factored into a tool. This tool should have
> been written before the Zope trunk was blown into pieces, but it wasn't. :-(
I'd reco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I want tools! Actually, I just want one tool. 70% of the release process is
>> repetition and that needs to be factored into a tool. This tool should have
>> been writte
Tres Seaver wrote:
I would prefer that we quit releasing non-source distributions at all;
the exceptions would be Windows eggs for packages containing extensions.
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zo
On Oct 2, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:14, Jim Fulton wrote:
One hole I see is giving people guidance on what needs to be tested
(and how) before a release is made. My preference would be to rely
heavily on judgement with a few checks so as not to mak
On 10/3/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It currently only makes releases as tgz, but adding eggs should be so
> > hard (it's done by calling setup.py anyway if I remember correctly).
>
> tgz files are all that's needed (or wante
On 10/3/07, Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It currently only makes releases as tgz, but adding eggs should be so
> hard (it's done by calling setup.py anyway if I remember correctly).
tgz files are all that's needed (or wanted); there's no reason to use
a .egg file. For packages tha
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process. Philipp, would you mind separating the release process into a
separate file? Or do you mind if I do it?
Done:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/releasing-software.txt
WRT
On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process. Philipp, would you mind separating the release process
into a separate file? Or do you mind if I do it?
Done: http://svn.zope.org/*che
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd really like to get to closure on the current approved release
process. Philipp, would you mind separating the release process into
a separate file? Or do you mind if I do it?
Some comments on the current draft at:
http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/fou
17 matches
Mail list logo
