That's right, Michael.
Also, agree On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Michael Ridley <[email protected]>wrote: > This sounds like a good approach to me. > > (Long time listener, first time caller - my understanding is that I can't > vote but I can comment..,yes...?) > > Michael Ridley > Sent from my mobile. > Pardon any spelling errors. > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Since we're on git now... to avoid confusion like this in the future > > (not just from PMC/committers who may not have touched the code in > > awhile, but also from users looking for the source)... > > > > I think it would be useful to do what Thrift did, and replace the > > existing source branches in SVN with a README > > (https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/thrift/README?view=log). The SVN > > history will still be there, and people will still be able to > > reference tags, just like with thrift > > (https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/thrift/tags/thrift-0.8.0/?pathrev=1419982 > ). > > > > I'm personally in favor of removing all of > > {trunk,branches,contrib,tags} with a README, but if people insist on > > {tags} remaining behind, I'd settle for replacing only the other > > three. (Technically, the tags are still there... at the version they > > were created... which is the only reliable way of referencing a tag in > > SVN anyway... so that's why I don't mind removing them in SVN HEAD). > > > > To make things easier on passers-by, we can document in the README, > > the last commit that occurred in SVN, and provide a viewvc link > > directly to that, and can also provide the svn command to check out > > that revision. > > > > Removing these paths from the SVN will help resolve any confusion > > about where our current development activity is taking place. > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Josh. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> From: "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:09:36 PM > >> Subject: Re: SVN or GIT > >> > >> No, SVN is not an option for main Accumulo development. > >> > >> The CMS site is still hosted on SVN, that's why the SVN info is still > >> there at all. It could possibly be trimmed some more -- I forget where I > >> left it. > >> > >> On 08/21/2013 08:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> Have not committed anything in a while. I read the GIT WIP wiki page. > Is svn still an option at this point, or do I need to move over to git. > What's the latest? > >> > >> >
