[Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2
transfire at gmail.com
Sun Aug 19 00:09:37 EDT 2007
On 8/18/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/18/07, Christopher J. Bottaro <cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > I don't care, either way... as long a some gem is made official and I
> > don't have to worry about it. I dunno, maybe continue with the orig
> > project since already when you search for libxml on rubyforge, two
> > projects come up (libxml and libxml2) and I think that might confuse
> > people.
> > My company is considering moving our app to Rails and that decision
> > it's very dependent on the performance and reliability of this
> > project. :)
> > Thanks for continuing on with this project.
> > -- Christopher
> > On 8/17/07, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> 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
> > > same to be sure. Should we stick to the old project or go forward with
> > > the fork?
> > >
> > > T.
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. If we do stick with the original, I will still have the
> > > repository converted to SVN and do some clean up.
> I think sticking to the original would be good. There are quite a few links
> out there pointing to the original project. It would be easier.
Okay. I will make the arrangements.
More information about the Libxml2-discuss