Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Christopher Medrela > wrote: > > Jacob, as you said, I deleted django-updates part, but I ended with a > > proposal taking only 9 weeks. Did you mean also scheduling more than 6 > weeks > > for the first part of the proposal (writing

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > Jacob, as you said, I deleted django-updates part, but I ended with a > proposal taking only 9 weeks. Did you mean also scheduling more than 6 weeks > for the first part of the proposal (writing the new

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

> > 2. I think your proposal is a bit too big. I'd general prefer to see a > less ambitious proposal with a high probability of success over a high > risk/high reward. I'd like to see you drop the "django-updates" part > of the proposal, and focus on validation and django-secure. If you end >

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > 1. First of all, I noticed that the license of django-secure is copyright. > Google forces us to release code under one of approved license [1], so a > question to Carl Meyer: do you mind changing license?

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > Thank you for your feedback. I really appreciate every comment because that > let me improve my proposal. > > 1. First of all, I noticed that the license of django-secure is copyright. > Google forces us to

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

Thank you for your feedback. I really appreciate every comment because that let me improve my proposal. 1. First of all, I noticed that the license of django-secure is copyright. Google forces us to release code under one of approved license [1], so a question to Carl Meyer: do you mind

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

Hi Christopher, I'd like to echo Jacobs comments here. This is a strong proposal, and I can see this being one that we'd support. Jacob's feedback is also spot on; he's pretty much flagged the exact concerns that I had when I read it. I'd possibly add one additional point - the potential for

Re: [GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

Hi Christopher - Thanks for the proposal, this is quite good. I really appreciate the detail; it's clear you've put a lot of thought into this. In general, I think this is a strong proposal and one I'd support. However, I do have some comments/feedback: 1. We've had some discussions about

[GSoC 2013] Revamping validation functionality proposal

I would like to participate in Google Summer of Code this year. I've written proposal for "revamping validation functionality" idea. It's available as a gist: https://gist.github.com/chrismedrela/82cbda8d2a78a280a129 . Below, I'm pasting the proposal. Feel free to criticize it. *Table of