Hi, On Mar 29, 3:54 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > Can you speak a little more about how you'd see the workflow working > with this new library? It seems a bit complex to have a library that's > *copied* between Django and Jinja: I'd worry about patches getting > lost. I think that problem can mostly be avoided. The interpreter / compiler / ast combo library is probably very minimal in size. I don't see a big problem having to copy them into the Django svn every once in a while. That could even be automated.
> For context, this has happened a few times with the simplejson and > elementtree libraries in core Python: patches made to the upstream got > "lost" before merging into Python's stdlib, and patches made against > the stdlib didn't make it upstream. stdlib is a more complex problem because it's tightly tied into the Python release cycle and has a separate set of developers. Even if I'm not a django developer I am never far from the project so it will be the same developer doing it during GSOC and afterwards. The extra work involved in making this work with both Jinja2 and Django and merging every once in a while should be minimal. The only problem would be other people doing changes to the codebase directly in the Django SVN. Which is why I would recommend having a dedicated separate repository for this thing (might as well be subversion if you want) where I and all Django developers have access for bugfixes if necessary. And also, once that thing is stable I don't think there is a lot to be done on the actual compiler. The Django specific stuff will not end up in that backend anyways. Regards, Armin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
