On Friday, 7 September 2018 13:57:03 CEST Andrea Bolognani wrote: > 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. Indeed, an email is easy to send once the repository is switched. > We should stick with the libvirt-ocaml name, though, which is > consistent with the way (almost[1]) all language bindings are > named. Agreed. > And once we have moved it back to libvirt.org and enabled > mirroring to GitHub, we should start thinking about CI :) Agreed! This will be on my TODO list once the repository is switched. -- Pino Toscano
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
