On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks good. Again, goes much further than I was originally expecting > initially :) > > I'm not sure I would copy the specs dir though, at least not until > some future point if particular need arises, since little/nothing will > really reference the copy. >
Okay, I'll hold off on that. > The readme for the update no longer mentions the Java QMF bits, > suggesting they aren't getting moved, but I see they are still in the > reorg fork at a previously-moved-there location, so just in case: if > nobody is committing to update and release them, as seems to be the > case currently, then I'd also leave them where they are in the current > repo until cause arises to do otherwise. > Yes. It's been ambiguous in my mind as well as in the proposal. I will leave them as-is for now and wait for a response from Fraser. After a time, if I don't hear from him, I'll proceed with removing them in a second-round cleanup. > The above said, perhaps their current nested structure is the main > reason they were moved in the fork, in which case perhaps removing > them from trunk first is the way to go. Ditto the WCF bits. > > Might be best to create a pre-reorg tag of everything before commencing. > Definitely. Good idea. > Finally, I'd suggest to use svn directly to do the significant > moves/copies, as using git-svn for example sometimes wont end up doing > exactly what you wanted/expected in those cases. > Will do. Thanks for the feedback and guidance. I've made a dry run and met with success, so I will kick this off shortly. Justin
