Sorry for late reply, was away from my email most of the day yesterday.
On Tuesday 15 Feb 2011 13:39:49 Travis Swicegood wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Michael Gliwinski
michael.gliwin...@henderson-group.com wrote:
Wouldn't shared functionality rather be something that you use in
On Monday 14 Feb 2011 17:05:27 Travis Swicegood wrote:
michael.gliwin...@henderson-group.com wrote:
Hmm, I see your point, however I'm wondering if it might be better then
to formalize and clean up that registry first...
We could -- that was against the idea behind this style. I wanted to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Michael Gliwinski
michael.gliwin...@henderson-group.com wrote:
There are two use cases. The one you mentioned (fab production.deploy,
fab
staging.deploy). I use that quite a bit.
The other case that I'm hoping this encourages is shared stuff. For
On Sunday 13 Feb 2011 16:50:10 Travis Swicegood wrote:
As many of you may know, I've long had a fork of Fabric that adds some
goodies in such as @task decorators and module level tasks (i.e., fab
prod.deploy) and a few other things. I've created a Pull Request on GitHub
Good job! There are
On Monday 14 Feb 2011 14:31:32 Travis Swicegood wrote:
Agreed -- this started out as a simple fix or two, then ballooned. There
are a few pieces to this that can be extracted, but for the most part the
__all__, namespace, and @task code depends on refactoring done along the
way so extracting
