"Alvin Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For example, the email routine I wrote and posted, if it doesn't make > it into the core. It would not bother me if it doesn't. However, it > is useless outside of TG.
But what is the problem of having it there -- cheeseshop, etc. -- and citing that it requires TG? I believe it would bring visibility to TG. > I know that we don't want to re-invent the wheel but this is sort of > like documentation. TG can point at the documentation for all the > component projects but that is a lot of reading. It would be better if > TG had it's own documentation on the TG way. With a lot of work, I can > get any of the cheeseshop routines to work with TG. However, I am lazy > and would rather not wade through over 1000 routines to find the TG > ones. Your intent, then, is to simplify searching for TG_stuff... I see... But then, CheeseShop already allows searching based on several information fields. It is just a matter of having all TG packages adding something like "Topic::TurboGears" or adding "TurboGears" in the Summary, Description, etc. > The underlying reason is just to reduce the learning curve. TG has > done some reat work with screencasts and a really helpful user > community. I'm more to reuse CheeseShop and enhance TG's visibility. Creating everything new would work as well -- or even better -- but would isolate TG from the rest of the Python community... Just my humble opinion, though... -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
