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
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 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 8/6/07, 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:
> 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
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
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
___
