Hi, we had another instance of someone (i.e. Tim :-)) using SF instead of Apache svn repository: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-132?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13123747 ... and missing the "MOVED TO APACHE.txt" file: http://jena.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/jena2/MOVED%20TO%20APACHE.txt?view=markup Because looking into jena instead of jena2.
The more people miss or wrongly use SF instead of Apache the more I become in favor of option #1 below. Also, http://openjena.org/ should probably redirect people to http://incubator.apache.org/jena/. Paolo Dave Reynolds wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:34 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> On 22/09/11 14:05, Dave Reynolds wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 12:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>>> It turns out I'd been more efficient than I remembered. There are >>>> already text files in Jena, ARQ and other places e.g. >>>> >>>> http://jena.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/ARQ/trunk/MOVED%20TO%20APACHE.txt >>>> >>>> I didn't get a sense of which option people thought was best. >>>> >>>> Three choices: >>>> >>>> 1/ Delete the repository trees. Leave one text file. Need to use >>>> history browsing to see anything. Will very noticeably alert anyone with >>>> a copy currently checked out. (Paolo's first suggestion) >>>> >>>> 2/ Leave for browsing but delete the build files and other stuff to stop >>>> accidental build and use. (Paolo's second suggestion) >>>> >>>> 3/ Have a "Jena has moved" file as now, maybe with a longer content than >>>> is currently there. (current situation) >>> I have a very mild preference for #3, i.e. leave it as is. >>> >>> [That way a developer who using an old version still has easy access to >>> the corresponding sources including via browse.] >> That's true for (2) as well - the sources are browsable without diving >> into history. >> >> The difference is that checkout-maven without looking at the file does >> not work in (2) but does in (3). > > True. > > My assumption was that anyone who is, for whatever reason, stuck with an > older version would want the ability to do a build. Though I guess the > build files could simply be moved/renamed or recovered from history. > > Like I say, I'd be happy with #2 or indeed #1. > > Dave > >
