In need of a maintainer

[icemac]

I am one of the release managers of zopefoundation and this project worries me:

• This package seems to be rarely used in the Zope/Plone commuity but more by Pyramid people.
• In the past there was a long time where tests did not run successfully, making the project looking unmaintained.

So is there someone to step up as a maintainer?
(I still can do code reviews and releases.)

[icemac]

A big thank you to @ianjosephwilson who fixed the most pressing deadlock issue, so I was able to get the tests running again and even a release with support for up to Python 3.14.

I am updating the original description to reflect the current situation.

[ianjosephwilson]

Thanks for getting the release out. I am excited to try out Python 3.14 soon. I'm glad I could help. It is not very often you can spend many hours trying to fix a problem and then... actually fix it (or so it seems).

I guess regarding the maintainer issue its not clear how many people are actually using this? It looks like some of the packages associated with pyramid_tm: pyramid_mailer and repoze.filesafe are falling a bit behind as well.

I'm trying to update my current project which has fallen a couple years behind. It uses zope.sqlalchemy and pyramid_tm. I'm not sure I'm really using much of the pyramid_tm+zope.sqlalchemy feature set besides lazy commits at the end of a request. Maybe I would need some sort of two-phase synchronization in the future though? Are there even alternatives in this space?

[robvdl]

I may also be able to help with the maintenance, I left a comment on the post under the pyramid repo.

[icemac]

@ianjosephwilson @robvdl Thank you for your willingnes to step up maintaining this repository.

@robvdl According to the contributing policies of the zopefoundation organization you need to sign a contributor agreement before any non-trivial change can be merged. For details please consult the Contributing guidelines for zopefoundation projects.

[robvdl]

Done that

[robvdl]

I've signed the contributor agreement and am just getting through my last week of work wrapup before xmas, looking forward to getting familiar with things over that period specifically. If there is anything in the mean time I can help with reviewing, I'm here.

[icemac]

@robvdl #86 is currently the only open PR, it seems that we have to close it, you could add a second opinion there.

[robvdl]

Yes I saw that one, it seems like some tests are required if there is to be any proof that savepoints in sqlite are stable. Just turning it on leaves the reviewer having to do some research on the current state of savepoints in isqlite.

[icemac]

I'd also be fine with rejecting it.