6/16/06, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc (AT) apache (DOT) orgwrote:

I think It's now to the point where I'd like to make
this the trunk, and get back to fixing bugs and implementing RFEs. What say
ye? If there's no objections, my plan is to copy the current trunk to a
"pre-maven" branch as is, then copy the "mvn_reorg" to the regular trunk.
I'd like to do this by tomorrow (Saturday June 17) evening, Pacific time, so
we can start addressing the backlog of issues.

+1 on the general idea, but I would just:

svn mv shale/trunk shale/tags/SHALE_PRE_MAVEN2
svn mv shale/branches/mvn_reorg shale/trunk

(Done remotely, as no one is likely to have all the tags and branches
checked out.)

I don't think we need either a branch for the pre-Maven code (just a
tag) or to keep a copy of what is now mvn_reorg in branches. Maybe
there were some implied "deletes" in your original plan. :)

6/16/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

6/16/06, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc (AT) apache (DOT) orgwrote:

I think It's now to the point where I'd like to make
this the trunk, and get back to fixing bugs and implementing RFEs. What
say
ye? If there's no objections, my plan is to copy the current trunk to a
"pre-maven" branch as is, then copy the "mvn_reorg" to the regular
trunk.
I'd like to do this by tomorrow (Saturday June 17) evening, Pacific
time, so
we can start addressing the backlog of issues.

+1 on the general idea, but I would just:

svn mv shale/trunk shale/tags/SHALE_PRE_MAVEN2
svn mv shale/branches/mvn_reorg shale/trunk

(Done remotely, as no one is likely to have all the tags and branches
checked out.)

That's pretty much what I had in mind, except
"". The thinking was that we might still
have to update the website out of the old tree, until all the wrinkles are
ironed out in the new tree.

As for "branches" versus "tags", that is basically just a convention anyway
Subversion treats them identically.

I don't think we need either a branch for the pre-Maven code (just a
tag) or to keep a copy of what is now mvn_reorg in branches. Maybe
there were some implied "deletes" in your original plan. :)

Agree that we don't need to keep any separate copy of the "mvn_reorg"
branch.

+1 -- Everything looks great.

I see I am too late to add my +1. Thanks for the work Craig. I will
try and test this on Monday.

Sean

ps. The continuum server is just sitting idly. We could start adding
projects to it now if we wanted.

6/16/06, James Mitchell <jmitchell (AT) apache (DOT) orgwrote:
+1 -- Everything looks great.

Clean checkout and build works like a charm. I will try to take a
look and see what else needs doing.

Sean

6/18/06, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:
I see I am too late to add my +1. Thanks for the work Craig. I will
try and test this on Monday.

Sean

ps. The continuum server is just sitting idly. We could start adding
projects to it now if we wanted.

6/16/06, James Mitchell <jmitchell (AT) apache (DOT) orgwrote:
+1 -- Everything looks great.