2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna <nbu...@gmail.com>: > 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 do you think I can rephrase this way? 2. Move "trunk" of Tools to a maintenance branch. 3. Move non mavenized projects (2.x branch of Engine, 2.1.x branch of Tools, "trunk" for the rest) to archive. 4. Move sandboxed projects in the place of the 2.x branch of Engine and "trunk" for the rest. Antonio --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
