[Zope-CMF] Re: Modifications using GS profiles

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

yuppie wrote:
> Hi Tres!
> 
> 
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> yuppie wrote:
>>
>>> But that code doesn't improve the non-purging mode. The changes Wichert 
>>> proposed make sense with or without the 'upgrade steps' feature.
>> If we had the upgrade machinery in place, we could scrap non-purging
>> mode altogether -- its purpose is to allow for "controlled" application
>> of changes to existing configuration without full replacement.
>> Wichert's rationale was specifically:
>>
>>> The particular reason I'm interested in this is that for Plone we are
>>> playing with using GenricSetup profiles as part of the migration code.
>>> This means we can write a lot less python code but just write changes
>>> as profile snippets.
> 
> Well. If we don't use the non-purging mode we can't write changes as 
> profile snippets. Should upgrade steps always be implemented in pure 
> Python without using any XML files?

I would say that the "execute-while-parse" model of our current profile
import driver is wrong for upgrades, but it would be possible.  The
upgrade step could do the checking that a given "upgrade-only" extension
should be imported, and then import it (perhaps passing 'no_purge' as a
flag).

Meanwhile, we would disable / remove any UI for setting that flag
outside an upgrade.

> BTW: Are there any unit tests for the upgrade steps feature?

I'll defer to Rob:  he was porting the code from the CPS add-on.

>>> CMF 2.1 beta has some serious site manager issues. Please let's focus on 
>>> resolving these issues first.
>> I'm really just lobbying to have the GS work tested and merged.  Fixing
>> ths LSM stuff is in the hands of a different set of folks, I think.
>> Rob, how did stuff go at Sorrento?
> 
> The CMF 2.1 branch is not as stable as it should be. Adding the 'upgrade 
> steps' feature might be low risk, but the other changes on the sprint 
> branch look more risky to me. I'm a bit afraid merging them will 
> destabilize the 2.1 branch further.

I don't think so.  The other changes split out the UI for setting the
baseline profile (ordinarily done only at site creation) and showing
available extensions.  I think the cleanup there is highly unlikely to
cause instability:  the only change is that we no longer require (or
even allow) people to set extension profiles as "faux" baselines in
order to import them.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at 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

iD8DBQFGHApu+gerLs4ltQ4RAlqXAKCHYfNjz+2c3iYn7GaZ/kwgimYNUwCggMDM
bb7izET8Lqq8MAHqARUdFTE=
=MmTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----