On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 17:13 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > What do you think? Is it an acceptable path forward? Rewriting history is frowned upon for very good reasons, but considering that the last commit performing anything but trivial maintainance tasks is from 2009 I think it's pretty fair to assume nobody is watching the repository too closely, so I'd personally be okay with replacing it with a fixed one as long as the change is clearly communicated through both the libvir-list and libvirt-users mailing lists. We should stick with the libvirt-ocaml name, though, which is consistent with the way (almost[1]) all language bindings are named. And once we have moved it back to libvirt.org and enabled mirroring to GitHub, we should start thinking about CI :) [1] I'm annoyedly looking at you, ruby-libvirt! -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
