Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8492 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2004 07:25:18 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Feb 2004 07:25:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 51423 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2004 07:24:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 51381 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2004 07:24:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 51364 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2004 07:24:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www2.kc.aoindustries.com) (65.77.211.84) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Feb 2004 07:24:52 -0000 Received: from dialup-168.242.221.203.acc02-aubu-gou.comindico.com.au (dialup-168.242.221.203.acc02-aubu-gou.comindico.com.au [203.221.242.168]) (authenticated) by www2.kc.aoindustries.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B7MWC30854 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:22:32 -0600 Subject: Re: Move to SVN? From: David Crossley To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: <20040209024745.21433.qmail@minotaur.apache.org> <4026F5FA.3080905@apache.org> <1076372739.1389.33.camel@ighp> <40289FE3.7050808@che-che.com> <4028DC8C.2020504@apache.org> <1076465698.1389.1531.camel@ighp> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1076484299.1389.1878.camel@ighp> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 11 Feb 2004 18:24:59 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > > The Apache infrastructure@ list says that there is a "test" > > repository that we can use. We should try a cvs2svn there first. > > cvs2svn is not ready for prime time AFAIK, so if we go now we should > IMHO just import HEAD. I tried to see if there were any issues mentioned at subversion.tigris.org ... i could not see any but that does not mean anything. Discussion about it not being ready might be an old furphy. Does anybody know? So are you saying just do HEAD and leave the 0.5 "branch" to be maintained with existing CVS? That sounds okay. However, we still want to bring the "history" of HEAD into SVN, i presume. --David