Hi Adrian, Your opinion of the my suggestions fits pretty closely with mine.
Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On 1/7/06, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > django.utils.httpwrappers -> django.http > > +1. I'm a big fan of this. django.http would get that'd get the > current contents of django.utils.httpwrappers, plus the Http404 and > Http500 exceptions. If you moved the Http exceptions in here then I could easily forget the change to the exceptions module. > > django.contrib -> django.apps > > -1 on this. "contrib" is a well-established name for "extra stuff" -- > and the code in contrib isn't necessarily all Django applications. For > example, django.contrib.markup is just a bunch of template tags. This one was not a biggy. But in my opinion even markup is an application, in the Django sense, and to me "apps" is snappier than "contrib". Anything incorporated into Django proper is more than just a "contribution" too - it is a Django stamped and approved feature. I would like to see a "contributions" page on www.djangoproject.com though. > > django.utils.feedgenerator -> django.feed > > -0 on this, only because the feedgenerator isn't used that often. This was with a view to the future, as this module is going to become more and more important. > Let's get some more feedback quickly and move forward with this. Also, > is anybody interested in implementing this code in magic-removal? > Kieran? I'd love to help but I would rather not commit to this because I am not working with the magic-removal branch and I know that there is pressure to get this branch out the door - I can't guarantee the time will be there at the moment. Kieran
