On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:13:23PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > Hi, > > for reasons mostly lost in the history, after the libvirt-ocaml > repository was converted to git, it was not used by its main author > (Rich Jones); the development continued on Rich's git, at > http://git.annexia.org/?p=ocaml-libvirt.git;a=summary > > After a talk with Rich, we agreed that it was better to move the > development back to libvirt.org, just like all the other bindings. > There are two problems however: > > 1) the first 38 commits have an bad author/committer date, and this is > also the reason why the existing libvirt-ocaml is not mirrored on > github > > 2) the top 3 commits on libvirt-ocaml were not integrated back to > Rich's ocaml-libvirt, and maybe their content might not be totally > OK (I will let Rich comment more on this) > > While rewriting history is bad, > - most probably there are not many users of libvirt-ocaml around, > - the repository itself is very small (< 500k), > - in general it will better to have a working repository > > So what I'm proposing is to replace the libvirt-ocaml repository with > a fixed version of Rich's ocaml-libvirt, and directly on the git hosting > side (i.e. not using force-push on the current one). Rich has already > commit access for libvirt, so there are no problems to keep his > maintainer role on it. Once done, we can notify users in this list > about it. > > What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward? I had a chat with Pino offline and I agree with this plan. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
