On 26.06.2007, at 21:44, Gary Poster wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bernd Dorn wrote:
On 23.06.2007, at 12:38, Christian Theune wrote:
Am Samstag, den 23.06.2007, 07:04 -0400 schrieb Gary Poster:
Hey Christian. I intend to check in some code that fixes
zope.app.keyreference conflict error issues I wrote about last
week.
This will take advantage of some code that I checked in to the
ZODB,
that I don't intend to be part of ZODB 3.8--so I don't intend my
zope.app.keyreference changes to be part of Zope 3.4.
The zope.app.keyreference package has not yet branched. In your
capacity as release manager, would you mind if I did that, so I
could
make a 3.5 dev checkin/egg? Also, I'm a bit confused on our
preference now: would this be 3.5.0-dev or 3.5.0a1-dev, or what?
Yes. And if you're at it, I'd welcome if you'd switch the tree's
trunk
to use that branch. :)
The trunk's setup.py of the satellite should either be 3.5.0a1 or
3.5.0.
i think as long the package has a dev dependency like ZODB 3.9 it
should at least have alpha or beta status
Hi Bernd.
Why?
because it pulls in software that has development status like zodb
3.9 and the release of 3.9 will take at least a half a year from now
on imho.
gary, is it possible to be compatible to 3.8 too?
Not productively. We could have "if the PersistentReference
doesn't have the 3.9 stuff then just refuse to do a ConflictError"
but then that's no different that the keyreference 3.4 behavior.
Heh, actually, that's effectively the behavior we probably have now
for keyreference 3.5dev running against ZODB 3.8, since errors in
the conflict resolution will simply cause the resolution to fail,
and the 3.5dev changes would generate AttributeErrors against ZODB
3.8 during conflict resolution.
So...it would be a bit of a lie to claim to be compatible with
3.8. The changes are useless without the 3.9 changes. But the
code *should* technically work with the same restrictions we have
now. That said, I don't really want to support the changes against
3.8.
...I could move the releases to our ZC download location, rather
than the zope.org one, if folks want...
i don't think that this is a good idea, for example our company uses
both of the download locations
What's the problem? I'm happy to help, especially if it doesn't
take too much time, and you can wait a day or two.
ok, i think if another new feature is implemented in keyreference and
we want this feature for zodb3.8 we have to do a version inbetween,
so if you call this a 3.5 release, what should that other version
be? 3.6
we use egg based releases and if you hardcode the zodb 3.9 dependency
in setup.py we have to switch to zodb3.9 just because of that package
if we want to use a new feature of it
maybe i am anticipating here and it's best to make it zodb 3.8
compatible when we need a newer version of keyreference for some
reason. the problem with this is, that we (zope committers) can do
this, but another company may not be able to change the package.
Gary
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
