The move has been completed. We now have: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/site/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/site/branches/may2006
And the revised UPDATE script contains: svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/site/trunk/docs . I'll leave a day for anyone to review these and then put my changes into trunk and sync to the site. I hope at that point Hernan will check his latest changes into the may2006 branch too. Thanks, Aaron P.S. The svn commit of the move terminated midway with a complaint about line endings, though when I went to try again I found that it had succeeded anyway. It all seems well, but some review would be great. On 6/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron, sounds like we have the appropriate +1s. do you have a date when this will be done ? 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 > > >
