[Zope-Coders] Upcoming releases

[Ken Manheimer]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Tim Peters wrote:

> [Tim Peters]
> > I'm back from vacation, and think I'm nearing the end of this part.
> > If final tests pass, I'll check it in, probably within an hour.  "It"
> > means stitching a current version of ZODB 3.3 into Zope trunk, plus
> > enough other changes so that the Zope tests all pass again.
> ...
> Heh.  I did check it in, but Zope-Checkins decided I wasn't allowed to
> post to that list so apparently swallowed the checkin comments and
> diffs.  That's pretty bizarre, since *I* didn't mail anything to
> Zope-Checkins; I'm not sure "who" it thinks sends the atuo-generated
> checkin email.

That was my fault.  I was experimenting with list settings looking to 
arrive at a balance that would hold incidental items while allowing 
official ones.  Turns out that's complicated on the notices list because 
the ostensible "from" address is the user's zope.org member address, which 
sometimes (probably, often) is not their list subscription address.

I gave up on that first stab, so messages will once again go through 
undeterred, and approved tim's held checkin notices.  (I also discarded a 
piece of spam that would have gone through without this measure, during 
the brief time it was in place.)

So i'm thinking about a more viable filtering approach.  There's a pretty 
obvious and simple one, that would allow only messages that come from the 
checkin-notifications mechanism (there is probably some cue in the 
headers, we can add one if not).  The drawback is that it would discard 
incidental comments, which can be valuable - typically, "whoops, did you 
really mean to do that?" responses, useful on a checkins list.  Those 
comments are typically cc'd to the original posters ("checkin-ers"?  
"checkers-iners"?), but having them on the list would be ideal.

Come to think of it, the best solution would be to allow both messages 
from the checkins mechanism *and* messages from subscribers.  I hope 
there's a way to do that - anyone know, offhand?

I'll post something when i put a new measure in place, so people won't be 
so surprised if things work, um, differently.

thinking-out-loud-is-useful-but-it-probably-looks-funny'ly,
Ken