On 8/6/07, pat eyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 probably the only way to move forward. Whether or not > the fork starts with a new code base or not is a question better > left for the folks with the C/libXML chops that will enable them to > make the decision.
I think pat's right. rather than waste any more time, lets just fork the dang thing. Charlie makes a good argument for sticking to the current code base though. But I'm concerned about the license. Are we good there for a fork? If so I will go ahead and do it. I suppose libxml2 is a fitting name, yea? Or anyone have something better in mind? T. _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
