> On 25 May 2017, at 07:14, Anil Madhavapeddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 May 2017, at 07:03, Rudi Grinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> As you all know, the recent switch to jbuilder makes it far easier to >> maintain multiple opam packages out of a single repo. So this is a >> chance to re-evaluate some of the repository organization decisions made >> earlier on. >> >> One such example is mirage-http [1]. This is a library that is tightly >> bound to the internals of cohttp and provides the same kind of >> functionality that cohttp does itself. Moreover, it doesn't have any of >> its own documentation. That suggests that it fails to meet the bar for >> its own git history. Therefore, I propose that we simply move it back to >> the main cohttp repository. Note that I will preserve mirage-http's git >> history in this process. > > I agree. There is also
(woops) There is also a growth in the rest of the ecosystem that the mirage-http repository was originally intended to fill -- for example, webmachine. Thanks for driving forward the cohttp splitting Rudi, this is very helpful! regards, Anil _______________________________________________ MirageOS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
