Thanks First Vincent (i cut your coment but read it), I know that cvs to svn have tool to do it (i test it in local)
> I've loaded a snapshot of Cactus into the test repository. > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/jakarta/cactus/ > > svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/jakarta/cactus/trunk jakarta-cactus > I am actually check it. (on a 56k) > Have a look and decide if: > > * It looks like everything is there (branches etc) and it still works > (ignoring the CVS change report) > * You're happy with the default structure of branches/tags/trunk. Most > of the ASF projects use this, with the difference usually being > because they have subprojects of some kind (commons, turbine, taglibs > etc). Did we use a different vesionnig number for the integration component (maven, ant, eclipse,..)? I am +1 I am for a separation of the intgration modules : cactus core tags branch trunk integration maven-plugin tags branch trunk ... Let me what you think of this. I want to have feed back about it (Vincent some cargo best practice) > > It also gives a everyone a chance to figure out how they want to > connect to subversion (IDE, gui, command line, tortoise etc etc) and > give it a go. > > Then we just need to decide when to make the change. It looks like > it'll be nice routine easy one. > Yes it could be cool to have an temporary svn repo to do the migration > Hen > Thanks Nicolas, > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
