Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 37121 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2009 11:23:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2009 11:23:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16694 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2009 11:23:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@james.apache.org Received: (qmail 16670 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2009 11:23:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Received: (qmail 16659 invoked by uid 99); 7 Mar 2009 11:23:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:23:53 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [217.150.250.44] (HELO ok2consulting.nine.ch) (217.150.250.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:23:44 +0000 Received: by ok2consulting.nine.ch (Postfix, from userid 1002) id EE8C01983F8; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:23:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (84-75-97-154.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.75.97.154]) by ok2consulting.nine.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2081983F8 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:23:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49B25921.7050308@apache.org> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:23:13 +0100 From: Oleg Kalnichevski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org Subject: Generated site content in SVN. Does this really make any sense? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on ok2consulting.nine.ch X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 Folks Having to check in the complete site in SVN as a part of the release process is a _real_ pain in the rectum. It is always much easier just to remove the previous release version and check in the new one, instead of trying to get a reasonable diff between the two. But the most painful thing about it is the feeling that the whole process is just pointless. I suggest we stop checking in sub-project's sites to SVN. Oleg