I thought it would be a bit less confusing if the current toplevel moved directly to REPO/mahout/mahout instead of moving to REPO/mahout.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Drew Farris wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Assuming it passes... (which it should.) We'll have some heavy lifting > to do for a few days/weeks before any practical part of it is noticeable, > just so people have reasonable expectations. > > > > What sort of things need to be addressed? > > > > Website: Sounds like Robin has a handle on the redesign > > > > SVN: Do we treat the move like a branch from /lucene/mahout to /mahout > > initially, and then further commits to move things around as Benson > > suggested? > > Yep. I can take care of the move when we are ready. > > > > > Mailing lists: these are handled by infra or someone here. > > Yes, we need to open JIRA issues for these against INFRA. > > > > > > Jira, Confluence -- these stay largely the same, right? > > Jepp. > > > > > People: committer accounts need to have a mahout group added. > > Jepp. > > > > > I'll be happy to lend a hand where I can. > > We also need http://mahout.apache.org created. > > Other things: > 1. Cleanup Lucene site etc. > 2. Coordinate with Sally and the ASF marketing team to do a press release. > > Probably some other things, too. > > -Grant
