I'd also recommend keeping the AT repositories where they are until we no longer rely on them (and even then, keep them around). Breaking existing setups shouldn't be done unless we can't avoid it. :)
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com<optilude%2bli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > On 1 August 2010 09:50, Alex Clark <acl...@aclark.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/26/10 6:41 AM, in article 4c4d6662.7000...@bubblenet.be, "Godefroid > > Chapelle" <got...@bubblenet.be> wrote: > > > >> Le 19/07/10 20:48, Geir Bækholt a écrit : > >> On 19-07-2010 19.09, Dorneles > >> Treméa wrote: > >>> +1, status quo > >> > >> I agree. Big +1 > > > > I received only +1s > >> : > > > > Since July 2010, 26th, write access to Archetypes repository will be > >> > > granted to each requester (as it is already the case for the collective > >> > > repository). > > > > > > > > > > Since this is the case, does it make any sense to try and commbine the AT > > repo with the collective repo? > > > > That'd mean one less repo to manageŠ > > Only if you can keep all checkout URLs and revision numbers 100% the > same, which I think is more or less impossible. Repository moves are > painful for anyone working on the software. > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net
_______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
