Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] golang/xenlight: add necessary module/package documentation

2020-05-13 Thread Nick Rosbrook
> OK, so didn’t notice this at first. It looks like you read the comments at > the top of libxl.c, noticed the comment about “...the special exception on > linking described in file LICENSE”, looked around for such a file, and found > it in tools/ocaml, and copied that one? > > I had a chat wit

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] golang/xenlight: add necessary module/package documentation

2020-05-13 Thread George Dunlap
) has joined #xendevel 13:17:55 <-- | zhengc (~zhengc@180.110.50.11) has quit (Ping timeout: | 258 seconds) 13:28:11 gwd | Diziet: OK -- this came up actually in the context of

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] golang/xenlight: add necessary module/package documentation

2020-05-13 Thread Nick Rosbrook
> One thing I forgot to mention about the README is the long lines — do you > mind if I wrap those before checking it in? I don't mind at all. > > Also, add a copy of the LGPL (the same license used by libxl) to > > tools/golang/xenlight. This is required for the package to be shown > > on pkg.g

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] golang/xenlight: add necessary module/package documentation

2020-05-13 Thread George Dunlap
> On May 13, 2020, at 1:58 AM, Nick Rosbrook wrote: > > Add a README and package comment giving a brief overview of the package. > These also help pkg.go.dev generate better documentation. One thing I forgot to mention about the README is the long lines — do you mind if I wrap those before ch

[PATCH v2 3/3] golang/xenlight: add necessary module/package documentation

2020-05-12 Thread Nick Rosbrook
Add a README and package comment giving a brief overview of the package. These also help pkg.go.dev generate better documentation. Also, add a copy of the LGPL (the same license used by libxl) to tools/golang/xenlight. This is required for the package to be shown on pkg.go.dev and added to the def