On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Antonio Petrelli <antonio.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna <nbu...@gmail.com>: >> No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the Engine trunk, only the 2.x >> branch (which can probably lose the "exp" moniker by now). Also, we >> should not mavenize the Tools trunk, but create a 2.1.x branch for >> that. The trunk is probably fine for the rest the projects. > > For me it's essentially the same, as long as we schedule the move to a > correct codebase management, i.e. trunk for the most advanced > codebase, branches for maintenance.
a good point, though the Engine trunk is not maintenance (yet), it's 1.x development, at least until 1.7 final is out. after that, we can see if anyone wants to develop a 1.8 or not. but for Tools, i concede. The trunk should be copied to a 2.0.x branch and then upgraded to 2.1-SNAPSHOT for mavenization. > So I can rephrase the 2 and 3 points this way: > 2. Move non mavenized projects (2.x branch of Engine, 2.1.x branch of > Tools, "trunk" for the rest) to archive. > 3. Move sandboxed projects in the place of the branches and trunks > archived at point 2. > > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
