I thought it would be a bit less confusing if the current toplevel moved
directly to REPO/mahout/mahout instead of moving to REPO/mahout.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>wrote:

>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Assuming it passes...  (which it should.)  We'll have some heavy lifting
> to do for a few days/weeks before any practical part of it is noticeable,
> just so people have reasonable expectations.
> >
> > What sort of things need to be addressed?
> >
> > Website: Sounds like Robin has a handle on the redesign
> >
> > SVN: Do we treat the move like a branch from /lucene/mahout to /mahout
> > initially, and then further commits to move things around as Benson
> > suggested?
>
> Yep.  I can take care of the move when we are ready.
>
> >
> > Mailing lists: these are handled by infra or someone here.
>
> Yes, we need to open JIRA issues for these against INFRA.
>
>
> >
> > Jira, Confluence -- these stay largely the same, right?
>
> Jepp.
>
> >
> > People: committer accounts need to have a mahout group added.
>
> Jepp.
>
> >
> > I'll be happy to lend a hand where I can.
>
> We also need http://mahout.apache.org created.
>
> Other things:
> 1. Cleanup Lucene site etc.
> 2. Coordinate with Sally and the ASF marketing team to do a press release.
>
> Probably some other things, too.
>
> -Grant

Reply via email to