Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update to draft-dejong-remotestorage-03 #1

Open
michielbdejong opened this issue Jul 18, 2014 · 6 comments
Open

update to draft-dejong-remotestorage-03 #1

michielbdejong opened this issue Jul 18, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

@michielbdejong
Copy link

Hi!

Great to see you wrote a remoteStorage server in python! We want as many different implementations as possible to exist, this is important for the process of getting the spec more stable on its way from Internet-Draft to (hopefully) RFC.

Can we help you update this server to the newest spec? Here's an example of how it works in nodejs: https://github.com/remotestorage/remotestorage-server/blob/master/lib/requests.js#L322-L369

@relet
Copy link
Owner

relet commented Jul 18, 2014

Hey! I am currently rather offline due to being on parental leave. If you find someone who is interested in working on it, I'm happy to add contributions and contributors - otherwise I'm not certain when I'll take a look at it.

@raucao
Copy link

raucao commented Jun 15, 2015

@relet Wanna take a look at this again sometime? Can I help with updating this server? The new spec is being released in a couple days, so we could try to bring it to -05 directly, making it valid for the next 1.5 years.

@untitaker
Copy link

I'd like to take this project over and get it up to date with -05. @relet What's your stance on introducing dependencies for this server? I'd like to start depending on Flask (or at least Werkzeug).

@relet
Copy link
Owner

relet commented Aug 19, 2015

Great to hear. I'm totally open to sensible dependencies.

What I would suggest to keep things democratic is that you just fork the project, and I'm happy to defer to whichever implementation is most active or popular, or link to several.

@untitaker
Copy link

I'm not sure if it makes sense to scatter around more forks, since this is rather confusing to users. If you agree with the changes, I'd like to merge that fork back sometime.

@relet
Copy link
Owner

relet commented Aug 19, 2015

Ok, that'll work. I'm also totally happy to give contributors access when
there is development.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:11 Markus Unterwaditzer [email protected]
wrote:

I'm not sure if it makes sense to scatter around more forks. If you agree
with the changes, I'd like to merge that fork back sometime.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1 (comment)
.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants