On 27/2/03 10:28 am, "Carsten Ziegeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So can we then simply start a proposal on how to name the repositories?
+1! There we go (from yesterday)
- Rename the "xml-cocoon" repository to "cocoon-1"
(you can see the effect of this as now both repositories are accessible
with the old and new names: they are an alias one of another)
- Rename the "xml-cocoon2" repository to "cocoon-2-historic"
(you can see the effect of this as now both repositories are accessible
with the old and new names: they are an alias one of another)
- Create a new repository called "cocoon-2.0" and copy over the cocoon-2_0_5
branch of "xml-cocoon2" (clean checkout, and re-import)
(this has been created as a part of this proposal, and it contains what
it should. All files are down at version 1.1 in this repository)
- Create a new repository called "cocoon-2.1" and copy over head from the
main "xml-cocoon2" repository (clean checkout, and re-import)
(this has been created as a part of this proposal, and it contains what
it should. All files are down at version 1.1 in this repository)
I would like to make my point by simply showing how checking out or doing an
update on new copies of the repository is _much_ faster than the old
ones... We don't have branches and we don't have empty dirs to process in
those...
Pier
