On 11/14/2013 01:43 PM, James Pearson wrote: > I was browsing around Freenet's github profile this morning and ran across > PyFCP (lib-pyFreenet). There were a few things that immediately jumped out > to me as projects I could work on, but given their scope I figured I'd get > some feedback before investing the effort. > > First, I'd like to convert the documentation from epydoc to sphinx. Sphinx > is much prettier by default, has a number of great themes, is not dead > (Epydoc's last release was almost six years ago!), lends itself to > user-documentation (not just API docs), and is supported by Read the Docs, > a fantastic documentation project that has become the standard for Python > projects.
Sounds good! > Secondly, the package is in actuality many different things, tied together > merely by subject (Freenet) and implementation language (Python); a good > half of the readme is a description of the various projects. Why should > someone wanting to work with the Freenet protocol in Python need to install > an IRC bot, or an XML-RPC server? A split should, of course, consist of a > number of forks from the current HEAD, so as to maintain revision history > for each project. Wow, that is incredibly crufty! An IRC bot for exchanging noderefs should no longer even exist - automatically exchanging noderefs is discouraged as it removes the need to socially engineer people to get into a darknet. That sounds like a holdover from Freenet 0.5 days if anything. > (BTW, the 'requires' argument is misspelled 'requries' in the setup.py; I > imagine setuptools would complain about this any time you attempt to build > the package.) > (BTW #2, what is the point of having separate -official and -staging > repositories? Is this not the point of branches?) My understanding is that there are separate repositories because GitHub does not support separate permissions for different branches within a repository. I'm not sure if this is a legitimate reason. There's a fair amount of momentum behind this setup, at least for fred, (it's in a number of scripts) but I for one would be open to consolidation. > My apologies if this is stepping on any toes; I'm not at all familiar with > the development history of Freenet or PyFCP, so I am relying upon you to > point out any reasons things should stay as they are. I am not aware of such toes or reasons. I know ArneBab reviewed the library a few months ago, but if I recall correctly that may have been focused on the FCP parts. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20131116/1120c574/attachment.pgp>
