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)? Kurt _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
