Re: split www/zope and www/plone into multiple versions

2008-02-17 Thread Nikolay Sturm
* Marc Winiger [2008-02-14]: > Nikolay, do you see the problem we have? Do you have any objections to > the way we solved it? Makes sense to me, I just wanted to be sure there was a reason to have multiple versions in tree. Nikolay

Re: split www/zope and www/plone into multiple versions

2008-02-14 Thread Marc Winiger
Marc Balmer wrote: Nikolay Sturm wrote: * Marc Winiger [2008-02-08]: The versions of zope and plone in the -current cvs tree are broken. They don't work togheter. So we decided to split the ports into multiple versions, that the user can choose the version he needs. Why would it make sense t

Re: split www/zope and www/plone into multiple versions

2008-02-09 Thread Marc Balmer
Nikolay Sturm wrote: * Marc Winiger [2008-02-08]: The versions of zope and plone in the -current cvs tree are broken. They don't work togheter. So we decided to split the ports into multiple versions, that the user can choose the version he needs. Why would it make sense to have multiple vers

Re: split www/zope and www/plone into multiple versions

2008-02-08 Thread Nikolay Sturm
* Marc Winiger [2008-02-08]: > The versions of zope and plone in the -current cvs tree are broken. They > don't work togheter. So we decided to split the ports into multiple > versions, that the user can choose the version he needs. Why would it make sense to have multiple versions of both in-tr