Having worked in the department of redundancy department, I'd say the
proposed changes are solid.
Ben
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Keith Fahlgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/7/08 11:07 AM, Trans wrote:
>
> > The "proper" names would be:
> >
> > libxml.gem
> > require 'libxml'
>
On 4/7/08 11:07 AM, Trans wrote:
> The "proper" names would be:
>
> libxml.gem
> require 'libxml'
> LibXML::
>
> And I would like to see us follow this practice.
+1
Keith
___
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge
Hi--
On Apr 7, 2:08 am, "Saurabh Nanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby' to 'libxml'.
>
> Why would you want to do that? Isn't having the -ruby suffix a good thing?
I can understand why one would think so. But it's not necessary
because it is a "Ruby World"
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to make a new release with the minor fixes I mentioned
> earlier.
>
> I would also like us to consider these changes:
>
> 1) Rename 'libxml_so' to 'libxmlc'.
>
> 2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby
> 2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby' to 'libxml'.
Why would you want to do that? Isn't having the -ruby suffix a good thing?
Saurabh.
--
http://nandz.blogspot.com
http://foodieforlife.blogspot.com
___
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml-devel@rubyf
