Clay Leeds wrote: > I'd like to respond to David Crossley's message with the hope that it > will either move along from its DRAFT classification or get changed so > that it can progress...
Thanks for following up on this. I never know about posting to multiple mailing lists. That is why i only sent the original to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked people to come here to discuss. Also this is where most of the previous discussion took place. Never mind, it is good to have broader feedback. I will gather the comments from those lists into the draft proposal. [snip] > > [B] Source docs are managed in project SVN > > > > The source files for the project's website are held in an SVN > > repository. These might be XML source for some projects, while others > > might have simple HTML docs. > > Forgive my naiveté here, but is this process different for a project > like xml-fop, which uses CVS as for version control (i.e., would > xml-fop and other 'CVS' projects have a corresponding cvs.apache.org)? > Or is this totally separate from a project's version control, and > everyone uses svn.apache.org for this stage of the process? Of course, perhaps i should have used the generic acronym SCM. Actually it was also deliberate, because Infrastructure is encouraging projects to migrate to SVN. Anyway yes, that item [B] represents whatever source control that the project uses. [snip] > With the exception of my one note above (svn.a.o vs. cvs.a.o), the > above sounds good^H^H^H^H GREAT to me! I hope others will comment on > this (at least to say "Looks good to me!") so this process can move > forward, and we can get relieve ourselves of this onerous issue. > > Thank you David for writing such a clear and concise proposal! Thanks. Let us hope that it is a catalyst. -- David Crossley --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
