Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0606071738y302e2565m42d0c39513d8e200@mail.gmail.com>
References: <74e15baa0606071738y302e2565m42d0c39513d8e200@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <E531FBCA-0FFC-4B21-8BE3-7FE557F18FFC@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: [RTC] move geronimo/site to a trunk & branch
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:00:49 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Good idea

+1

-dain

On Jun 7, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> Currently, the code checked in to the geronimo/site repo does not (and
> should not) correspond to our live web site.  My understanding is that
> Hernan has a newer revision that he has not checked in (but it can be
> seen at http://people.apache.org/~hcunico/newsite/)
>
> I want to update the news and events on the current site to move the
> expired events, add some 1.1 information, etc.  I want to do that to
> the site as it exists on geronimo.apache.org site today, until we're
> in agreement about what it should look like next.  Currently I can't
> do that unless I edit the HTML on minotaur directly and lose any
> Subversion history (I believe the content on minotaur is as of
> just-before-rev-411192).
>
> I propose we:
> - move geronimo/site to geronimo/site/branches/may2006
> - copy geronimo/site revision 411191 to geronimo/site/trunk
> - update the site sync script on minotaur to pull from geronimo/ 
> site/trunk
>
> Then Hernan can check his pending changes into the new branch and I
> can check my news and event updates into both the branch and trunk and
> sync minotaur from trunk.  When we're all agreed that the branch
> content is what we want, we can either merge it to trunk or move trunk
> away and move the branch to be the new trunk.
>
> I'm taking the slightly unusual step of not attaching a patch since I
> think the description above is much more meaningful than the
> equivalent tremendously large patch.  Here's my +1, can I get 3 more?
>
> Thanks,
>    Aaron