I have no such problems.
Nice for you
Again, 2.3.0 works for me pretty nice in this aspect. I am going to switch to VirtualHostMonster, but now I use SiteRoot, and I am satsified.
Do you have different domains under the same tree? In my installation there are about 10 domains on 1 server. 9 domains work perfect, 1 does not.
It was declared "stable" exactly because no one caugth such behaviour. In the world of free software it is *you* who test software, send patches to authors, etc. No one ought to do something special for you. Why didn't you test 2.3 betas and caught these errors? Ah, you want only stable software! Then pay for it! Either you must (I said "must") pay with your time (test betas, make patches) or you can pay money.
It doesn't seem to be a good day for you, does it? Your definition of the word 'stable' seems to be the Microsoft definition, which doesn't work too. There I pay for software and it isn't stable anyway. I don't think that the people of DC think the same like you. They are interested in a stable and working Zope, and therefore their support on this list is professional and perfect. Of course Zope is not open source only because of philantropic thoughts. There should not only be the fact, that it is free, but also the fact, that a declaration of 'stable' really is trustable. OK, let's say 2.3.0 is really stable. What is the difference, which made Zope go away on my redhat server? Is there anything different in installing 2.3.0 than 2.2.5? I made the upgrade exactly as described in the Upgrading-Howto.
Why didn't you test 2.3 betas and caught these errors?
Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and webdesigner. Without this class of users, there would be no use for Zope. Except for your hobby. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Stephan Goeldi wrote:
Again, 2.3.0 works for me pretty nice in this aspect. I am going to switch to VirtualHostMonster, but now I use SiteRoot, and I am satsified.
Do you have different domains under the same tree? In my installation there are about 10 domains on 1 server. 9 domains work perfect, 1 does not.
Yes, I have, 3 different domains. And only 2 of them have SiteRoot objects.
It doesn't seem to be a good day for you, does it?
Absoluteley not. But it is strange to see people demanding stable software without doing something good for it. Stable software without user support? Nonsense! It's me who make the software good! Join me and help me (and the community).
OK, let's say 2.3.0 is really stable. What is the difference, which made Zope go away on my redhat server? Is there anything different in installing 2.3.0 than 2.2.5?
Now something more constructive. Well, I didn't do anything special. First time I installed 2.3 I copied old Data.fs from 2.2.5, but later I found that 2.3 has much nicer interface, and I wanted to preserve its original root folder, so I restarted 2.2.5, exported all folders, and imported them to fresh 2.3. I also copied all products (except for SiteAccess - it is bundled with 2.3, finally) and reimported all ZClassess (I use 2 such Products). BTW, I remember now that I have a problem similar to your problem with SiteAccess, and it is with 2.2.2. There is specail installation where sysadmin runs Zope in a very restrictive environment (chroot, to name the term). And there I have the problem, but I can login to site not from root, but from main site address, and manage the site. I hope to eliminate the problem encouraging him to upgarde to 2.3, and I'll switch to VirtualHostMonster later.
Why didn't you test 2.3 betas and caught these errors?
Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and webdesigner.
Then I hope you will encourage you programmers to improve Zope! Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://www.zope.org/Members/phd/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Oleg Broytmann wrote:
BTW, I remember now that I have a problem similar to your problem with SiteAccess, and it is with 2.2.2. There is specail installation where sysadmin runs Zope in a very restrictive environment (chroot, to name the term). And there I have the problem, but I can login to site not from root, but from main site address, and manage the site. I hope to eliminate the problem encouraging him to upgarde to 2.3, and I'll switch to
While we talk the named sysadmin upgraded the site to Zope 2.3 The problem with SiteAccess remains, but my solution still works. I hope that
VirtualHostMonster later.
will help me. Good luck! Oleg. ---- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ phd@phd.pp.ru Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Stephan Goeldi wrote:
Why didn't you test 2.3 betas and caught these errors?
Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and webdesigner. Without this class of users, there would be no use for Zope. Except for your hobby.
I don't want to participate in a war here. But if you do not intend to test betas and report problems (which an administrator can still do) then I suggest that you stay one to two versions behind and NEVER install a ".0" version of anything. You won't have the latest functionallity but you won't have the problems associated with it either. That's the RealWorld(tm)! <g> -- Tim Cook, President -- Free Practice Management,Inc. | http://www.FreePM.com Office: (901) 884-4126 "Liberty has never come from the government." - Woodrow Wilson
Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and webdesigner. Without this class of users, there would be no use for Zope. Except for your hobby.
I don't want to participate in a war here. But if you do not intend to test betas and report problems (which an administrator can still do) then I suggest that you stay one to two versions behind and NEVER install a ".0" version of anything. You won't have the latest functionallity but you won't have the problems associated with it either. That's the RealWorld(tm)! <g>
I too am not interested in a war - there is too much volume on this list already. So I will attempt to clarify some things and leave it at that. There are many types of users in the Zope community. Some are early-adopter types who are happy to try out early alphas and use the public CVS. Others are very dependable in using beta releases in their environment and are very active in reporting and diagnosing problems. Some (quite reasonably) don't have the time or inclination to do these things and that is fine too. We have a documented release process (see dev.zope.org), where we introduce new features (in feature releases) in alphas. In the beta cycle, no new features are added - only bugs are fixed. The reality is that we get quite a few people who use the betas in many different environments with many different configurations, installed products etc. - for these folks we are all grateful. But even a lot of people saying "works for me" in a lot of different environments does not guarantee "works for everyone". There is a practical limitation to the coverage that a beta cycle can provide. There is a curve of diminishing returns, bug reports tail off as the part of community using the betas get to "works for me". As a practical matter, at some point a release has to be made, because of the simple fact that *you will not find the rest of the bugs until it is used by the wider community*, and the expanded coverage that implies. You could stay in beta for the next year and you will still have this problem, just a year later. If this offends you, then by all means take the advice earlier in this thread: stay with an earlier release until you are comfortable. Don't take _our_ word for it, take the community's word. Ask around to people with similar configurations. This is not an "open source software" issue - its not even just a software issue. If the new 2002 model of your favorite sports car comes out "totally redesigned", you have the same choice to make. Surely the engineers who designed did their level best to find problems before putting it out there, but does that guarantee that there won't be any? No - you need to decide whether you need that new sunroof today or if you're going to hang onto your '99 and wait for any problems with the 2002 to shake out. To be fair to the many folks who worked on 2.3, I think that it is easily the most stable '.0' release that Zope has had. That is thanks to a lot of hard work and attention to detail on the part of the contributors, the Fishbowl and a generally more mature development process. I don't think anyone who was around for earlier '.0' releases would argue this point. As with any .0 release, we know full well that there will need to be a .1 relatively soon afterward to take care of any important issues. This will happen with a 2.3.1 in the next few weeks. </war> Brian Lloyd brian@digicool.com Software Engineer 540.371.6909 Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com
My only comment would seem to be that some problems are not directly related to the Zope version but rather the products that people install with it. LocalFS is one we are picking on, but a good example of a rock solid cool product that dies on Zope 2.3. Multiply this with many products and people assume Zope 2.3 has problems. Perl has the ability to run checks on a module to see if it will pass a test in a particular version. Im thinking more checking and work on keeping the products in sync or at least tested, with Zope versions and platforms whilst difficult to do may help. That is an issue for another thread/day though. -- Andy McKay. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@digicool.com> To: <tim@freepm.org>; <stephan.goeldi@datacomm.ch> Cc: <zope@zope.org> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:37 AM Subject: RE: [Zope] 2.3.0 really not Beta?
Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and webdesigner. Without this class of users, there would be no use for Zope. Except for your hobby.
I don't want to participate in a war here. But if you do not intend to test betas and report problems (which an administrator can still do) then I suggest that you stay one to two versions behind and NEVER install a ".0" version of anything. You won't have the latest functionallity but you won't have the problems associated with it either. That's the RealWorld(tm)! <g>
I too am not interested in a war - there is too much volume on this list already. So I will attempt to clarify some things and leave it at that.
There are many types of users in the Zope community. Some are early-adopter types who are happy to try out early alphas and use the public CVS. Others are very dependable in using beta releases in their environment and are very active in reporting and diagnosing problems. Some (quite reasonably) don't have the time or inclination to do these things and that is fine too.
We have a documented release process (see dev.zope.org), where we introduce new features (in feature releases) in alphas. In the beta cycle, no new features are added - only bugs are fixed.
The reality is that we get quite a few people who use the betas in many different environments with many different configurations, installed products etc. - for these folks we are all grateful.
But even a lot of people saying "works for me" in a lot of different environments does not guarantee "works for everyone". There is a practical limitation to the coverage that a beta cycle can provide.
There is a curve of diminishing returns, bug reports tail off as the part of community using the betas get to "works for me". As a practical matter, at some point a release has to be made, because of the simple fact that *you will not find the rest of the bugs until it is used by the wider community*, and the expanded coverage that implies. You could stay in beta for the next year and you will still have this problem, just a year later.
If this offends you, then by all means take the advice earlier in this thread: stay with an earlier release until you are comfortable. Don't take _our_ word for it, take the community's word. Ask around to people with similar configurations. This is not an "open source software" issue - its not even just a software issue.
If the new 2002 model of your favorite sports car comes out "totally redesigned", you have the same choice to make. Surely the engineers who designed did their level best to find problems before putting it out there, but does that guarantee that there won't be any? No - you need to decide whether you need that new sunroof today or if you're going to hang onto your '99 and wait for any problems with the 2002 to shake out.
To be fair to the many folks who worked on 2.3, I think that it is easily the most stable '.0' release that Zope has had. That is thanks to a lot of hard work and attention to detail on the part of the contributors, the Fishbowl and a generally more mature development process. I don't think anyone who was around for earlier '.0' releases would argue this point.
As with any .0 release, we know full well that there will need to be a .1 relatively soon afterward to take care of any important issues. This will happen with a 2.3.1 in the next few weeks.
</war>
Brian Lloyd brian@digicool.com Software Engineer 540.371.6909 Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Stephan Goeldi] | >Why didn't you test 2.3 betas and caught these errors? | | Because I am not a programmer. I am an administrator and | webdesigner. Without this class of users, there would be no use for | Zope. This is not true. Zope is applicable to many other areas besides Content Managment and dynamic websites. I won't mention any of those because it isn't in the context of this thread. | Except for your hobby. Let's not get personal here. I've seen many mailinglists and newsgroups go really sour because of personal attacks. The Zope-lists are very free of such non-sense, and it would be nice if they stayed that way. If you want to comment on someone, comment on their actions, not their person. This is very basic conflict-psychology. We've all read Gandhi, right? :)
participants (7)
-
Andy McKay -
Brian Lloyd -
Erik Enge -
Oleg Broytmann -
Oleg Broytmann -
Stephan Goeldi -
Tim Cook