Hello, +1
I would prefer /trunk -> 2.0 /branches/myfaces-1.1.x /branches/myfaces-1.2.x because we are not using cvs anymore and the path already contains http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/ maybe we can omit the 'myfaces' in the branch name. Regards Bernd On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: > actually, I agree with Bernd. > > For the following layout: > > /trunk -> 2.0 > /branches/myfaces_1_1_x > /branches/myfaces_1_2_x > > Two reasons for way making 2.0 trunk: > -most current development is on-going in 2.0 (new spec) > -most commits are going to the 2.0 branch (so, let's make it trunk) > > > So, I am +1 on the above "svn layout" > > > -Matthias > > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > wrote: >> from Bernd, on a different thread: >> >> Hello, >> >> I would suggest following layout >> >> 1.1.x branch/1.1.x >> 1.2.x branch/1.2.x >> 2.0.x trunk >> >> because the 2.0.x version is in development the other branches are >> only in bugfix state. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I filed this: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2053 >>>>> >>>>> maybe we should also think about making the JSF 1.1.x stuff a branch ... >>>>> (since we already work on 2.0.x....) >>>> >>>> what do people think if the 1.2 stuff becomes "trunk" >>>> And the following efforts are on a branch: >>>> -2.0.x >>>> -1.1.x >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
