A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109, the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48 hours.
Also, following some mailing list and IRC discussion [2], I'll be trying to land #10355 at the same time. This is the addition of the email backend API.
If you have any objections to either of these commits - even if its just "hold off until I've had a chance to take a look", now is the time to speak.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
<freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109, > the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48 > hours.
I've left a few comments in that thread, but they don't need to be addressed pre-merge. Fire away!
> Also, following some mailing list and IRC discussion [2], I'll be > trying to land #10355 at the same time. This is the addition of the > email backend API.
I've left a few notes on the ticket. The only one that needs to be addressed pre-merge is a simple design decision, and the final call's yours.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109,
>> the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48
>> hours.
> I've left a few comments in that thread, but they don't need to be
> addressed pre-merge. Fire away!
>> Also, following some mailing list and IRC discussion [2], I'll be
>> trying to land #10355 at the same time. This is the addition of the
>> email backend API.
> I've left a few notes on the ticket. The only one that needs to be
> addressed pre-merge is a simple design decision, and the final call's
> yours.
Russel, thanks for finishing the mail backend patch! Jacob's notes on
the ticket sound very reasonable to me - please let me know which of
them you'll address before merging. I'd be happy to provide a patch
for anything remaining.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee >> <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109, >>> the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48 >>> hours.
>> I've left a few comments in that thread, but they don't need to be >> addressed pre-merge. Fire away!
>>> Also, following some mailing list and IRC discussion [2], I'll be >>> trying to land #10355 at the same time. This is the addition of the >>> email backend API.
>> I've left a few notes on the ticket. The only one that needs to be >> addressed pre-merge is a simple design decision, and the final call's >> yours.
> Russel, thanks for finishing the mail backend patch! Jacob's notes on > the ticket sound very reasonable to me - please let me know which of > them you'll address before merging. I'd be happy to provide a patch > for anything remaining.
I've already integrated Jacob's comments into the code in my local checkout. Actually, Jacob's comments pointed out an interesting code cleanup: the File email backend is really just the Console email backend pointing at a file object instead of stdout. As a result, I've been able to delete a bunch of code by modifying the console backend to accept an arbitrary stream, and making the file backend a subclass of the console backend.
I'll commit tonight (my time) once I have a chance to give the patch a final review.
Thanks for your work on this patch Andi, and everyone else that has contributed feedback and comments.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
<freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've already integrated Jacob's comments into the code in my local > checkout. Actually, Jacob's comments pointed out an interesting code > cleanup: the File email backend is really just the Console email > backend pointing at a file object instead of stdout. As a result, I've > been able to delete a bunch of code by modifying the console backend > to accept an arbitrary stream, and making the file backend a subclass > of the console backend.
> I'll commit tonight (my time) once I have a chance to give the patch a > final review.
Thanks a lot, Russell!
Andi, could you please add your App Engine email backend to our test project?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've already integrated Jacob's comments into the code in my local
>> checkout. Actually, Jacob's comments pointed out an interesting code
>> cleanup: the File email backend is really just the Console email
>> backend pointing at a file object instead of stdout. As a result, I've
>> been able to delete a bunch of code by modifying the console backend
>> to accept an arbitrary stream, and making the file backend a subclass
>> of the console backend.
>> I'll commit tonight (my time) once I have a chance to give the patch a
>> final review.
> Thanks a lot, Russell!
> Andi, could you please add your App Engine email backend to our test project?
I'd prefer to keep the App Engine email backends separate until we're
able to bundle a complete package that provides App Engine support for
Django.
Two backends (a synchronous and an asynchronous one) are available on
bitbucket: http://bitbucket.org/andialbrecht/appengine_emailbackends/
<albrecht.a...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109,
>>> the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48
>>> hours.
>> I've left a few comments in that thread, but they don't need to be
>> addressed pre-merge. Fire away!
>>> Also, following some mailing list and IRC discussion [2], I'll be
>>> trying to land #10355 at the same time. This is the addition of the
>>> email backend API.
>> I've left a few notes on the ticket. The only one that needs to be
>> addressed pre-merge is a simple design decision, and the final call's
>> yours.
> Russel, thanks for finishing the mail backend patch! Jacob's notes on
> the ticket sound very reasonable to me - please let me know which of
> them you'll address before merging. I'd be happy to provide a patch
> for anything remaining.
|
