[ANN] Zope 2.7.2 RC1 released
Hi all, on behalf of Zope Corporation and the Zope community I am pleased to announce the release of Zope 2.7.2 RC1. You can download it the sources from http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/ Installers for Microsoft Windows will be available shortly! THIS RELEASE IS ALSO A SECURITY UPDATE AND CONTAINS A FIX FOR A SECURITY PROBLEM IN PAGE TEMPLATES. YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO UPGRADE TO ZOPE 2.7.2 OR INSTALL THE HOTFIX #2004-07-13 WHICH WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY. For more information on what is new in this release, see the CHANGES.txt and HISTORY.txt files for the release: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/CHANGES.txt http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/HISTORY.txt Zope 2.7.2 final will be released with the next seven to ten days. For more information on the available Zope releases, guidance for selecting the right distribution and installation instructions, please see: http://www.plope.com/Books/2_7Edition/InstallingZope.stx -- Andreas Jung (andreas at zopyx dot com)
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:29:35AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi all,
on behalf of Zope Corporation and the Zope community I am pleased to announce the release of Zope 2.7.2 RC1.
great! I'll be testing it on our dev servers. will holler if anything breaks. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
Hi Andreas, I'll be giving this one a whirl. One little issue - do we really want to advise people to downgrade from python 2.3.4 to 2.3.3 ? !! WARNING !! An acceptable, but non-optimal Python version (2.3.4) was found at '/usr/local/bin/python'. But consider installing version '2.3.3' before running 'make'. If this isn't the Python version or interpreter instance you wish to use, you may specify a Python interpreter manually by rerunning the ./configure script with the '--with-python' option. On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:29:35AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Hi all,
on behalf of Zope Corporation and the Zope community I am pleased to announce the release of Zope 2.7.2 RC1. You can download it the sources from
http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/
Installers for Microsoft Windows will be available shortly!
THIS RELEASE IS ALSO A SECURITY UPDATE AND CONTAINS A FIX FOR A SECURITY PROBLEM IN PAGE TEMPLATES. YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO UPGRADE TO ZOPE 2.7.2 OR INSTALL THE HOTFIX #2004-07-13 WHICH WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY.
For more information on what is new in this release, see the CHANGES.txt and HISTORY.txt files for the release:
http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/CHANGES.txt
http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.2RC1/HISTORY.txt
Zope 2.7.2 final will be released with the next seven to ten days.
For more information on the available Zope releases, guidance for selecting the right distribution and installation instructions, please see:
http://www.plope.com/Books/2_7Edition/InstallingZope.stx
-- Andreas Jung (andreas at zopyx dot com)
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
-- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 12:36 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
Hi Andreas, I'll be giving this one a whirl. One little issue - do we really want to advise people to downgrade from python 2.3.4 to 2.3.3 ?
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why? Andreas
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions. Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice. As with any upgrade, careful testing is needed. If the amount of testing needed is a concern (reasonable since it takes time), upgrade Python and Zope in lockstep. Now, it would be nice if it were easier to switch an instance home to use a different software home. ;-) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> Zope Corporation
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:46 Uhr -0400 Fred Drake <fred@zope.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) > If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions.
Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice.
As with any upgrade, careful testing is needed. If the amount of testing needed is a concern (reasonable since it takes time), upgrade Python and Zope in lockstep.
My point is that Python 2.3.3 is running fine and has no major bug. The detected behaviour is also documented (maybe somewhat hidden) in the information view of the product release. The real solution would be to fix the configure script to allow multiple optimal Python versions...any volunteers? :-) -aj
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:57 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
My point is that Python 2.3.3 is running fine and has no major bug. The detected behaviour is also documented (maybe somewhat hidden) in the information view of the product release. The real solution would be to fix the configure script to allow multiple optimal Python versions...any volunteers? :-)
I think describing any particular version as optimal probably isn't ideal, especially if there's more than one version in that category. ;-) Perhaps we should call them "preferred". Changing this now would be cause for an RC2 to be generated, so I'm inclined not to worry about this today. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> Zope Corporation
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 14:07 Uhr -0400 Fred Drake <fred@zope.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:57 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
My point is that Python 2.3.3 is running fine and has no major bug. The detected behaviour is also documented (maybe somewhat hidden) in the information view of the product release. The real solution would be to fix the configure script to allow multiple optimal Python versions...any volunteers? :-)
I think describing any particular version as optimal probably isn't ideal, especially if there's more than one version in that category. ;-) Perhaps we should call them "preferred".
Changing this now would be cause for an RC2 to be generated, so I'm inclined not to worry about this today.
Good point...2.3.3 is very well tested with Zope and it has no major bugs. I am sure that this is true for 2.3.4 as well but it is not so very much tested. I think we will stay with this decision for while...point :-) -aj
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 02:50 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Good point...2.3.3 is very well tested with Zope and it has no major bugs. I am sure that this is true for 2.3.4 as well but it is not so very much tested. I think we will stay with this decision for while...point :-)
On the other hand, 2.3.4 is absolutely required for Zope X3. (There's always a wrench in the works, isn't there?) -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> Zope Corporation
If we want to include 2.3.4 as "optimum" or "preferred", somebody should try to run all of the Zope, CMF, and Plone unit tests under it and report back success... that would be good enough for me, anyway. - C On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:57, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:46 Uhr -0400 Fred Drake <fred@zope.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) > If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions.
Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice.
As with any upgrade, careful testing is needed. If the amount of testing needed is a concern (reasonable since it takes time), upgrade Python and Zope in lockstep.
My point is that Python 2.3.3 is running fine and has no major bug. The detected behaviour is also documented (maybe somewhat hidden) in the information view of the product release. The real solution would be to fix the configure script to allow multiple optimal Python versions...any volunteers? :-)
-aj _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:46:04PM -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions.
Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice.
Another possibility - change the configure script so it accepts more than one version as "optimum." I think I could do that pretty easily. Opinions?
As with any upgrade, careful testing is needed. If the amount of testing needed is a concern (reasonable since it takes time), upgrade Python and Zope in lockstep.
Now, it would be nice if it were easier to switch an instance home to use a different software home. ;-)
my software home is usually a symlink for that reason. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 14:18 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:46:04PM -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions.
Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice.
Another possibility - change the configure script so it accepts more than one version as "optimum." I think I could do that pretty easily. Opinions?
Could you work on a solution? :-) Andreas
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:08:09PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 14:18 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:46:04PM -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 01:09 pm, Andreas Jung wrote:
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why?
As long as both are accepted, we're not forcing anyone to change versions.
Advising anyone to step backward from a more stable version is a bad move. I'd rather see 2.3.3 go from being optimum for 2.7.1 to merely acceptable than to see the bugfix release (Python 2.3.4) be considered the second choice.
Another possibility - change the configure script so it accepts more than one version as "optimum." I think I could do that pretty easily. Opinions?
Could you work on a solution? :-)
Sure. Checked in to svn on the slinkp-configure_changes branch (branched from the trunk aka 2.8). Seems to work fine with a 2.7.2-RC1 tarball, too. I could check it in on 2.7 too I guess, but would that require an RC2 release? -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 18:01 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
Could you work on a solution? :-)
Sure. Checked in to svn on the slinkp-configure_changes branch (branched from the trunk aka 2.8).
Seems to work fine with a 2.7.2-RC1 tarball, too. I could check it in on 2.7 too I guess, but would that require an RC2 release?
Thanks Paul for your efforts. I would like to avoid a RC2 .For this reason the following suggestion: - we keep 2.3.3 as optimial version for 2.7.2 - for 2.7.3 we accept 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 as optimial version (with your patch). Maybe I am too conservative with this point of view. But if anyone is upgrading from 2.7.1 to 2.7.2 only for security reasons (there were no major bugfixes since 2.7.1) then it would be stupid to tell...get a new Python version first...that's my argument. Andreas
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 18:01 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:08:09PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Could you work on a solution? :-)
Sure. Checked in to svn on the slinkp-configure_changes branch (branched from the trunk aka 2.8).
Seems to work fine with a 2.7.2-RC1 tarball, too. I could check it in on 2.7 too I guess, but would that require an RC2 release?
Your patch works fine for me. I suggest to commit the changes to the 2.7 branch and make 2.3.4 the preferred version over 2.3.3. The unit tests are running fine for me. So I am updating the docs that 2.3.3 or 2.3.4 are the recommended version (not 2.4). Thanks for your efforts, Andreas
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:50:27PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 18:01 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:08:09PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Could you work on a solution? :-)
Sure. Checked in to svn on the slinkp-configure_changes branch (branched from the trunk aka 2.8).
Seems to work fine with a 2.7.2-RC1 tarball, too. I could check it in on 2.7 too I guess, but would that require an RC2 release?
Your patch works fine for me. I suggest to commit the changes to the 2.7 branch
shouldn't i wait until after 2.7.2-final? Fred said: """ Changing this now would be cause for an RC2 to be generated, so I'm inclined not to worry about this today. """ On balance I don't think this is worth holding up a 2.7.2 release with all the cool stuff in it. Also, I am unclear where the 2.7 branch is these days... svn or cvs? I'm not seeing the 2.7 branch in either http://cvs.zope.org or http://svn.zope.org . -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 02:18 pm, Paul Winkler wrote:
Another possibility - change the configure script so it accepts more than one version as "optimum."
Very reasonable, but see my comments about wording in another post. More importantly, any change would cause a new RC to be needed.
my software home is usually a symlink for that reason.
That's a good approach; you need that for both your software home and your Python installation, of course. ;-) Now, we just need to make that work on Windows. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> Zope Corporation
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 15:32, Fred Drake wrote:
my software home is usually a symlink for that reason.
That's a good approach; you need that for both your software home and your Python installation, of course. ;-) Now, we just need to make that work on Windows.
Symlinks work really well for this, anything else seems like.. framework. ;-) - C
Well, it certainly made me upgrade. Not a biggy, but it would not install without it. Jake -- http://www.ZopeZone.com Andreas Jung said:
--On Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 12:36 Uhr -0400 Paul Winkler <pw_lists@slinkp.com> wrote:
Hi Andreas, I'll be giving this one a whirl. One little issue - do we really want to advise people to downgrade from python 2.3.4 to 2.3.3 ?
Do we really want to enforce people to upgrade from 2.3.3 to 2.3.4? :-) If yes, why?
Andreas _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 12:36 pm, Paul Winkler wrote:
Hi Andreas, I'll be giving this one a whirl. One little issue - do we really want to advise people to downgrade from python 2.3.4 to 2.3.3 ?
I don't think so, but I might be biased. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> Zope Corporation
participants (5)
-
Andreas Jung -
Chris McDonough -
Fred Drake -
Jake -
Paul Winkler