On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Kurt Smith wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Robert
Bradshaw<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Well, this changes things significantly -- thanks for the offer!
Since I'd rather work with you folks than some external organization,
I'll keep fwrap on Cython's servers, wiki & trac. Thanks for the
generosity!
I'll start setting things up over the weekend. What's the next step(s)?
If you point me to your repository, I'll put it up next to ours. I'll also
set up a trac project for you, and for the wiki I think
wiki.cython.org/fwrap should be good enough.
- Robert
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
