On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Chris Moffitt <[email protected]> wrote: > With those caveats in mind, here's what I'm thinking is in scope: > - Modifying Satchmo to use django-bursar for payment processing > - Also modifying Satchmo to use the new livesettings and keyedcache > implementations that Bruce has spun off from Satchmo. +1 for these. Making Satchmo more modular is a good thing in my opinion.
> If you have other ideas or things you'd like to include, let me know. The > nice thing about our move to bitbucket is that there is a ver low barrier to > you committing. You can create your own fork, make your changes and let me > know when they're ready for inclusion. I can then easily review and pick and > choose what I want to include. It's a really nice model and some people have > already started doing it. I encourage others to do the same. By the way, do you prefer forks, patch attachments or patch queues? If you prefer forks should we put all our bug fixes in the main branch? I've read http://stevelosh.com/blog/entry/2009/8/30/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/ and instead of clearing things up for me, it made them a bit fuzzier :-) Also, it wouldn't hurt to mention this on the Wiki like cobbler does; see https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/wiki/PatchProcess Cheers, Cristian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Satchmo users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/satchmo-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
