Ah. Good point!
Sent from my iPod.
On 22.05.2009, at 21:10, Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohm...@atanion.com>
wrote:
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
