has anyone done any work getting libxml to work on/with Rubinius?
--
thanks,
-pate
-
Duty makes us do things, Love make us do things well.
http://on-ruby.blogspot.com http://on-erlang.blogspot.com
http://on-soccer.blogspot.com
___
For consistency, stick to the original.
On 8/17/07, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Crazy, crazy. Sean appeared out the blue aether yesterday, and gave me
> admin rights to the original libxml project. So I suppose the fork
> isn't necessary after all. But I'll put it to the community just the
On 8/6/07, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, some questions:
>
> 1. Are we going to change to a new mailing list then? If so, maybe you
> can send an email to this list Trans?
If possible, it would be nice to continue to use this list as it will
help to maintain some continuity and
On 8/6/07, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think pat's right. rather than waste any more time, lets just fork
> > > the dang thing.
> >
> > I agree its would be good to get going. But do we really need to fork
> > just to get checkin
On 8/6/07, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> > There are legal reasons that prevent the admins from 'fixing' it.
> > A fork is probably the only way to move forward.
>
> Can you explain the legal reasons? And can they be worked around by
> adding another administrator to the
On 8/5/07, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thats the whole reason for a fork... No one can check in...
>
> Can't a ruby-forge administrator fix that? Imagine the confusion having
> two libxml ruby bindings.
There are legal reasons that prevent the admins from 'fixing' it.
A fork is
On 1/6/07, Ross Bamford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Okay, here's a little more on the upcoming bug day. This is all just my
> thoughts, it'd be great to get any input on this at all.
>
> When
>
> I think we should hold the bug day in February, maybe around the 10-15th.
> Pat recommend
