zope-2.8.9.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

zope-2.8.9.1

Ingo Schwarze
Hi,

the following is not intended for commit, and probably it's not
worth spending much time on it polishing it beyond its current
"works-for-me"-state.  All the same, feedback is welcome.
I send it just in case anybody else is also forced to still
run Zope 2.8 on 4.3 or -current (perhaps i should rather tell
the owner of that 2.8 site to either fix his plugins to work
with 2.9 or to go to hell...)

This is a quick backport of Marc Balmer's zope-2.9.8 port
to zope 2.8.9.1.  To make it build, you must move ../Makefile.inc
aside.  Agreed, that's not a clean way, but it's a quick way to
make this build against python 2.3 as required.

The tarball is also available from
  http://www.studis.de/Software/zope-2.8.9.1.tgz

Yours,
  Ingo

zope-2.8.9.1.tgz (51K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: zope-2.8.9.1

Marc Balmer-2

Am 11.05.2008 um 23:25 schrieb Ingo Schwarze:

> Hi,
>
> the following is not intended for commit, and probably it's not
> worth spending much time on it polishing it beyond its current
> "works-for-me"-state.  All the same, feedback is welcome.
> I send it just in case anybody else is also forced to still
> run Zope 2.8 on 4.3 or -current (perhaps i should rather tell
> the owner of that 2.8 site to either fix his plugins to work
> with 2.9 or to go to hell...)
>
> This is a quick backport of Marc Balmer's zope-2.9.8 port
> to zope 2.8.9.1.  To make it build, you must move ../Makefile.inc
> aside.  Agreed, that's not a clean way, but it's a quick way to
> make this build against python 2.3 as required.
>
> The tarball is also available from
>  http://www.studis.de/Software/zope-2.8.9.1.tgz
>
> Yours,
>  Ingo
> <zope-2.8.9.1.tgz>

we should really begin to tell the zope people to begin using recent  
python
versions for zope.  the situation as is is a PITA.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: zope-2.8.9.1

Ingo Schwarze
Hi Marc,

Marc Balmer wrote on, May 12, 2008 at 09:42:55PM +0200:

> we should really begin to tell the zope people

Well, the last time we tried to talk to them
was not exactly a success.  ;)

> to begin using recent python versions for zope.

Let's have a quick look at the timeline:

Jul 29, 2003: Python 2.3 release
Jul  8, 2004: Python 2.4 alpha 1
Nov 30, 2004: Python 2.4 release
Jun  4, 2005: Zope 2.8 release requiring Python 2.3 (2/11 months)
Oct  2, 2005: Zope 3.1 release requiring Python 2.4 (last available)
Dec  5, 2005: Zope 3.2 release requiring Python 2.4 (last available)
Jan  7, 2006: Zope 2.9 release requiring Python 2.4 (last available)
Apr  5, 2006: Python 2.5 alpha 1
Sep 19, 2006: Python 2.5 release
Sep 27, 2006: Zope 3.3 release requiring Python 2.4 (0/5 months)
Oct  3, 2006: Zope 2.10 release requiring Python 2.4 (0.5/6 months)
Nov  5, 2007: Zope 3.4 beta 2 requiring Python 2.4 (13/19 months)
Dec 28, 2007: Zope 2.11 beta 1 requiring Python 2.4 (15/20 months)
Feb 29, 2008: Python 2.6 alpha 1
Sep 03, 2008: Python 2.6 release scheduled (PEP 361)

So, the Zope people used to be typically 0 to 2 months behind -
or 0 to 11 months if you argue that Python alpha releases
are good enough to do compatibility testing.  Perhaps,
watching out for deprecation notices in PEPs might provide
even earlier clues.

But there does seem to be a problem recently concerning the
adoption of Python 2.5, both in the 2.11 and 3.4 branches.

> the situation as is is a PITA.

Not _requiring_ the newest version of Python is not that bad,
but _breaking_ on newer versions of Python is a PITA indeed.

OTOH, as an outsider to Zope development, i dare not judge
what additional work load support for multiple Python versions
per Zope version might entail...
In my smaller Python projects, avoiding deprecated constructs
and planning for future upward compatibility was not an issue,
but Zope is a gigantic and convoluted beast indeed.

Yours,
  Ingo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: zope-2.8.9.1

Stuart Henderson
On 2008/05/13 00:09, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Jul 29, 2003: Python 2.3 release
> Nov 30, 2004: Python 2.4 release
> Jun  4, 2005: Zope 2.8 release requiring Python 2.3 (2/11 months)
> Oct  2, 2005: Zope 3.1 release requiring Python 2.4 (last available)

Sorry to break in on the thread, but something I wondered about
recently and seeing this reminded me: is there a good reason for
keeping 2.3 in-tree?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: zope-2.8.9.1

Federico Schwindt-2
In reply to this post by Ingo Schwarze
> [..]
> > the situation as is is a PITA.
>
> Not _requiring_ the newest version of Python is not that bad,
> but _breaking_ on newer versions of Python is a PITA indeed.

  well, although not requiring is not that bad, there is special
interest in using 2.5 as there are a few serious issues fixed, like
the GC one.

> OTOH, as an outsider to Zope development, i dare not judge
> what additional work load support for multiple Python versions
> per Zope version might entail...
> In my smaller Python projects, avoiding deprecated constructs
> and planning for future upward compatibility was not an issue,
> but Zope is a gigantic and convoluted beast indeed.

  afaik, zope3 already works with 2.5.
  2.5 support for zope2 is scheduled for the 2008 GSOC afaik.. we'll see.

  f.-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: zope-2.8.9.1

Marc Balmer-2
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson

Am 13.05.2008 um 00:18 schrieb Stuart Henderson:

> On 2008/05/13 00:09, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Jul 29, 2003: Python 2.3 release
>> Nov 30, 2004: Python 2.4 release
>> Jun  4, 2005: Zope 2.8 release requiring Python 2.3 (2/11 months)
>> Oct  2, 2005: Zope 3.1 release requiring Python 2.4 (last available)
>
> Sorry to break in on the thread, but something I wondered about
> recently and seeing this reminded me: is there a good reason for
> keeping 2.3 in-tree?
>

yes, we still use it.  Some part of the organization of the Euro 08  
soccer
championship is using it.

So please leave it, it does not harm and it still has users.

- Marc