Mailing-List: contact dev-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
In-Reply-To: <f8b39ace0606161858n7cbdf141sd112d8cc0df2d942@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8b39ace0606161813u40a88e3bu80b5236e4c65082f@mail.gmail.com>
 <adba96190606161830h4ee77053m70031f47cff3d554@mail.gmail.com>
 <f8b39ace0606161858n7cbdf141sd112d8cc0df2d942@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <0DDA8AA3-97B5-49C4-9D58-0DE87837600C@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: James Mitchell <jmitchell@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Shale][PROPOSAL] Cut over to Maven2 based source tree
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:52:00 -0400
To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>

+1 -- Everything looks great.

--
James Mitchell


On Jun 16, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:

> On 6/16/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/16/06, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >  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
> "shale/branches/SHALE_PRE_MAVEN2".  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.
>
> --
>> Wendy
>
>
> Craig


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org