On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:39:03AM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:13:23 CEST Pino Toscano wrote:
> > What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward?
>
> Considering there seems consensus on this solution, how do we move
> forward? Should I fix the repository,
On Thursday, 6 September 2018 17:13:23 CEST Pino Toscano wrote:
> What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward?
Considering there seems consensus on this solution, how do we move
forward? Should I fix the repository, publish it somewhere (github
or so), and somebody will replace it
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:13:23PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for reasons mostly lost in the history, after the libvirt-ocaml
> repository was converted to git, it was not used by its main author
> (Rich Jones); the development continued on Rich's git, at
>
On Friday, 7 September 2018 13:57:03 CEST Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 17:13 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward?
>
> Rewriting history is frowned upon for very good reasons, but
> considering that the last commit performing
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 17:13 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward?
Rewriting history is frowned upon for very good reasons, but
considering that the last commit performing anything but trivial
maintainance tasks is from 2009 I think it's pretty fair to
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:13:23PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for reasons mostly lost in the history, after the libvirt-ocaml
> repository was converted to git, it was not used by its main author
> (Rich Jones); the development continued on Rich's git, at
>
Hi,
for reasons mostly lost in the history, after the libvirt-ocaml
repository was converted to git, it was not used by its main author
(Rich Jones); the development continued on Rich's git, at
http://git.annexia.org/?p=ocaml-libvirt.git;a=summary
After a talk with Rich, we agreed that it was
