[Libxml2] libxml vs. libxml2

[Charlie Savage]

> On 8/18/07, *Christopher J. Bottaro* <cjbottaro at alumni.cs.utexas.edu 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.

I'd agree.

Charlie

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3237 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/libxml2-discuss/attachments/20070821/df477312/attachment.bin