On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:43:28 -0700 (PDT), Martin Cooper wrote: > I'm not completely sure I understand what you're proposing, but > here are a couple of points to bear in mind: > > 1) As we move out of the Jakarta repo into our own TLP repo, we > need to decide whether we want to ask infrastructure@ for a new CVS > repo or an SVN repo. (Personally, I'm leaning towards saying that > what's in CVS is the 1.2.x "branch", and taking exactly what's > labelled as 1.2.1 and moving that to SVN, where we can > (theoretically) mess around to our hearts' content, but that's just > my on opinion.)
+1 But if people would like to experiment on non-Apache hardware first, I can help with that too. <snip/> > IMHO, we really need to come up with a complete proposal for all of > this - or at least a proposal for a plan for getting there - before > we start making actual changes to what's in CVS today. > > That shouldn't stop you experimenting with the CVS tree locally, > but I wouldn't want to see changes in the real live repo before > we've agreed on where we want to go with all of this. I agree that a living repository would be the best proposal. If there are different approaches, we'd like to try, we can discuss and demo those too. If we're uncomfortable with having infrastructure@ setting up a SVN repository for us now, I can setup one elsewhere and provide access to the commiters. In the end, the bulk of a proposal might be the easiest way to import (SVN) or rename (CVS) our latest repository and reorganize it again, since once we are done, we might want to do it again with the latest revision of jakarta-struts (which will hopefully remain a moving target). -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
