Closing the loop - I opened #20653 to track this issue.
Consensus seems to be that check is the best name on offer, so I've
committed that change in in 03465639.
Russ %-)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Daniel Lindsley wrote:
> Russ,
>
>
> Apologies for forcing the issue & for making a me
Russ,
Apologies for forcing the issue & for making a mess of the
``django.core`` namespace. The goal was to help improve the user experience
of sanity-checking their kit, but it seems I did more harm than good.
I'm fine with unifying the two (with option #2 probably being more
likely
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> 1) Keep checksetup as a name, and integrate the GSoC work under that new
> name (including making the API entry points called check() or checksetup()
> ).
>
> 2) Rename `checksetup` to `verify`, setting the groundwork for the GSoC to
>
On 19 juin 2013, at 10:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> 1) Keep checksetup as a name, and integrate the GSoC work under that new name
> (including making the API entry points called check() or checksetup() ).
>
> 2) Rename `checksetup` to `verify`, setting the groundwork for the GSoC to
> exp
Hi all (but especially Daniel)
I've got a quick question about a recent commit and some naming
consequences that I think we need to sort out before we cut the 1.6 beta.
tl;dr - I think we either need to rename the recently added checksetup
command, or do some light refactoring of it's internals s
