Mailing-List: contact general-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <000901c5b48e$20342090$9d04fea9@hogwarts>
From: "Mark Womack" <mwomack@apache.org>
To: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0506240109430.1636@kongo>
 <000f01c57d3b$f6c5fc80$9d04fea9@hogwarts>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507242052260.20942@kongo>
 <000801c5b1a4$a37f77c0$9d04fea9@hogwarts>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509042235020.15074@kongo>
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:58:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Henri,

We can try a test migration for the structure you mention.  I don't think we 
need log4j-attic; it can just be archived.  Also, we want to change 
logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox.  It is going to be a repository 
that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental stuff.  We may need 
to rearrange its contents.

How will checkin emails/notifications work?  Is it possible to get 
subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will there be 
one email list that gets all checkin notifications?

thanks,
-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
To: "Mark Womack" <mwomack@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN


>
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>
>> Hi Henri,
>>
>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn. 
>> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide migration. 
>> Is that timeframe ok with you?
>
> (Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US 
> Eastern).
>
> We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the 
> structure.
>
>> What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
>
> Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
>
> logging-chainsaw
> logging-core
> logging-log4cxx
> logging-log4j
> logging-log4j-sandbox
> logging-log4net
> logging-log4php
> logging-site
>
> Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
>
> logging
>   <subproject>
>     trunk
>     branches
>     tags
>   site
>
> It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves 
> log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is log4j-attic 
> wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be something to 
> archive.
>
> For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and let 
> you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
>
>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a 
>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can 
>> play in .
>
> As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for 
> the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and isn't 
> left to each individual subproject.
>
> Hen
>
>