+1 2015-12-13 18:47 GMT+13:00 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]>:
> I see no objections > so I'll perform the change :) > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > recently one of the Apache members point me to inconsistencies in our > SVN > > tree structure. > > Usually component have 'plain' structure > > > > Module > > -- trunk > > -- branches > > -- tags > > > > we have structure like this: > > > > OM > > --trunk > > -- debian/ > > -- debian_package/ > > -- patches/ > > -- plugins/ > > -- singlewebapp/ > > -- site/ > > -- branches (of singlewebapp) > > -- tags (of singlewebapp) > > > > I propose following structure: > > OM > > -- application > > -- trunk > > -- branches > > -- tags > > -- debian > > -- trunk (with contents of *debian_package*, *debian* should be > > removed as it is GPL licensed) > > -- plugin > > -- trunk (plugins from trunk and branches should be moved here) > > -- site > > -- trunk (with contents of trunk/site) > > -- branches (with 3.0.x and 2.x docs) > > > > Additionally I would like to ask INFRA to create RW mirror of OM (or at > > least OM/application) at git > > > > please let me know in case you are against such restructuring or would > > like to propose different structure > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock [email protected]
