On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 05/23/2016 08:34 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >>> >>> This rebase could also incur some squashing of patches, to make it more >>> ready for upstreaming. What do you think of that? >> >> >> I haven't checked the repo recently, but it seems like there has been quite >> a bit of experimenting and going back and forth. It would probably be nice >> to get it reworked and cleaned up so we avoid adding unnecessary "debt" from >> the beginning. Just guessing. >> >> I understand TurboGears is very modular and uses existing libraries. Now, >> with a almost-already-successful more-than-proof-of-concept, could it make >> sense to migrate the existing application to these libraries one by one? For >> example starting with replacing paster? >> > > I don't know if it will be that easy, at least I don't see the > modularity right now in the current codebase. > > Currently, paster is still used. I briefly tried using gearbox (the > supposed replacement) but it did not work. I did not spend more time > on that to focus on the rest, but it should be tackled at some point. > Other stuff like 'debugbar' also seems very useful, but did not work > out of the box either. > Surely all these are small issues that can be fixed with minor changes. > > While actual usage seems fine, there are still many issues in the test > suite and I think we should resolve them before trying to go mainline. >
See also https://bitbucket.org/conservancy/kallithea/wiki/Turbogears2Migration _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
