On Aug 25, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Kurt Smith wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, William Stein<[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kurt Smith<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I think its best that fwrap be its own package, distributed >>> separately >>> from Cython. That was the vibe I got from those at the SciPy 2009 >>> conference and from the recent thread on Fwrap's licensing. The >>> added >>> benefit is that fwrap won't weigh Cython down w.r.t. licensing >>> issues >>> or be an impediment to Cython's acceptance into the Python std. lib. >>> >>> Presuming that everyone here agrees with the above (or doesn't >>> care), >>> the remaining question is where to host it. Since fwrap is still >>> closely linked to Cython, I think a natural spot for the mercurial >>> repo would be on Cython's servers. No strong feelings here -- I'm >>> just as happy putting it on bitbucket. Fwrap would *not* clutter up >>> Cython's trac, or Cython's wiki. These would be elsewhere. >>> >> >> As the own of Cython's servers, I hereby certainly offer you >> hosting space. > > Thanks! I'm evaluating bitbucket & googlecode to see what they offer > -- apparently googlecode has mercurial support, so that is a big plus. > I'll decide soon & let you know.
I wouldn't consider it "clutter" to have an fwrap section of the wiki, nor host another porject on the cython trac server. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
