If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri). Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Even sooner would be fine with me. I plan to release a 2.8.8 this weekend with the changes for the ReST fix (I already released a 2.7.9). Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment on unreleased ZODB changes (for a fix to issue #2016) and that there is a sizable set of changes on the 3.2 branch after 3.2.1, at least some of which might be important for Zope2. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEt/gS+gerLs4ltQ4RAti/AJ9YTcGB/e3UXvqRn9SW3UxYq30SEwCgoYRY 8/+qvoX+IOAVQPBRqByTwjc= =4tr0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tres Seaver wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Even sooner would be fine with me. I plan to release a 2.8.8 this weekend with the changes for the ReST fix (I already released a 2.7.9).
Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment on unreleased ZODB changes (for a fix to issue #2016) and that there is a sizable set of changes on the 3.2 branch after 3.2.1, at least some of which might be important for Zope2.
Ok. Let's get a Zope 3.2.2 out first, then. It should probably happen anyways because of the docutils thing, right? Also, Alec Mitchell backported the new traversal behaviour (attributes, views, acquired junk) to Five 1.3. So we should probably also include a new Five 1.3.x release as well. I would expect that that would make a few people happy... Philipp
--On 14. Juli 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Even sooner would be fine with me. I plan to release a 2.8.8 this weekend with the changes for the ReST fix (I already released a 2.7.9).
Should not be a problem for me..perhaps Monday...
Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment on unreleased ZODB changes (for a fix to issue #2016) and that there is a sizable set of changes on the 3.2 branch after 3.2.1, at least some of which might be important for Zope2.
I think we should make another internal ZODB release. The current svn:externals for the ZODB (and other modules) use a revision number instead of a tag. This reminds me of some former discussion whether to use revision numbers or tags...what was the result of this discussion. I am very much in favor of using tag names...revision number tell you nothing...provide at least a reasonable version information...opinions? -aj
Previously Andreas Jung wrote:
I think we should make another internal ZODB release. The current svn:externals for the ZODB (and other modules) use a revision number instead of a tag. This reminds me of some former discussion whether to use revision numbers or tags...what was the result of this discussion. I am very much in favor of using tag names...revision number tell you nothing...provide at least a reasonable version information...opinions?
+1 on tags Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 14. Juli 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Even sooner would be fine with me. I plan to release a 2.8.8 this weekend with the changes for the ReST fix (I already released a 2.7.9).
Should not be a problem for me..perhaps Monday...
Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment on unreleased ZODB changes (for a fix to issue #2016) and that there is a sizable set of changes on the 3.2 branch after 3.2.1, at least some of which might be important for Zope2.
I think we should make another internal ZODB release. The current svn:externals for the ZODB (and other modules) use a revision number instead of a tag. This reminds me of some former discussion whether to use revision numbers or tags...what was the result of this discussion. I am very much in favor of using tag names...revision number tell you nothing...provide at least a reasonable version information...opinions?
+1. I tagged 'ZODB-3.4.4' and 'Zope-3.0.2-Zope-2.8' "releases" yesterday for internal consumption of the Zope 2.8 branch. I don't expect to make actual releases from those tags, but I like having them there. As we move to a more fine-grained package architecture (i.e., egg-based Zope "districbutions"), we are going to have to do more "releases management" of the individual pieces which make up Zope. Keeping the changelog current will be a bit of a chore, but is essential in a packageing-driven maodel (just as with RPM / .deb packaging). Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEuNKv+gerLs4ltQ4RAmELAJ4oRjpr7lJU4m+8qzcXv1EL9JwMnwCglwO3 nPLTzxp2s1dtPbTQjuWI6vE= =II/L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Andreas Jung]
... I think we should make another internal ZODB release. The current svn:externals for the ZODB (and other modules) use a revision number instead of a tag. This reminds me of some former discussion whether to use revision numbers or tags...what was the result of this discussion. I am very much in favor of using tag names...revision number tell you nothing...provide at least a reasonable version information...opinions?
The things people complain about sometimes astonish me -- just as the things I complain about sometimes astonish others :-) I used tags for ZODB until I gave in to complaints about that, and switched to using revision numbers. The real complaint about using a tagged external is that when the tag changes, SVN isn't smart enough to do an incremental update. Instead, when you update after an external tag changes: - It wholly deletes you current checkout of the external. If non-version-controlled files (like .pyc) happen to be sitting in the directories, this leaves behind useless "OLD" directories. - It does a complete checkout of the new tag. This generally takes more time. And forces a recompile too even if no C code in the external has actually changed, It's true that changing an external revision number instead suffers none of those drawbacks. Like I cared ;-)
--On 15. Juli 2006 15:21:20 -0400 Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
The things people complain about sometimes astonish me -- just as the things I complain about sometimes astonish others :-)
I used tags for ZODB until I gave in to complaints about that, and switched to using revision numbers. The real complaint about using a tagged external is that when the tag changes, SVN isn't smart enough to do an incremental update. Instead, when you update after an external tag changes:
What do you mean with "when the tag changes"? A tag IMO should *never* change. I know that even CVS allows you to modify tagged files however I consider this a misuse of the concept "tag". A tag in my understanding is identical with the state for a sequence of files and dirs for a given timestamp where the timestamp should never change. -aj
Previously Andreas Jung wrote:
What do you mean with "when the tag changes"? A tag IMO should *never* change.
What he describes sounds like modifying svn:externals to point to a different tag. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
--On 14. Juli 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
If there are no objections, I plan to release Zope 2.9.4 in about one week (likely next Thu or Fri).
Note that the 2.9 branch depends at the moment on unreleased ZODB changes (for a fix to issue #2016) and that there is a sizable set of changes on the 3.2 branch after 3.2.1, at least some of which might be important for Zope2.
Since nobody replied to my posting about a 3.2.2 release this week I will release 2.9.4 using Zope 3.2.1. Andreas
participants (5)
-
Andreas Jung -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Tim Peters -
Tres Seaver -
Wichert Akkerman