Re: Tag / Branch naming (was Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/)
On 2/18/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/17/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Can't we all just use what we were using for the first 5 years of > > > Struts? > > > > > > I'll rename them with underscores, for example: > > > STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0. Okay? > > > > +1 from me. If this is done, could you also do the Shale ones so we're > all > > one big happy (consistent :-) family again? > > This is done for Action 1.3.0, Shale, and Scripting, (including moving > the misplaced Scripting 1.0.1 tag.) Thanks, Wendy! -- Martin Cooper -- > Wendy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Tag / Branch naming (was Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/)
On 2/17/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Can't we all just use what we were using for the first 5 years of > > Struts? > > > > I'll rename them with underscores, for example: > > STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0. Okay? > > +1 from me. If this is done, could you also do the Shale ones so we're all > one big happy (consistent :-) family again? This is done for Action 1.3.0, Shale, and Scripting, (including moving the misplaced Scripting 1.0.1 tag.) -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tag / Branch naming (was Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/)
On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can't we all just use what we were using for the first 5 years of > Struts? > > I'll rename them with underscores, for example: > STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0. Okay? +1 from me. If this is done, could you also do the Shale ones so we're all one big happy (consistent :-) family again? Craig (See also: > > http://www.nabble.com/svn-commit%3A-r378516---struts-action-tags-STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0--t1140971.html > ) > > -- > Wendy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Tag / Branch naming (was Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/)
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't we all just use what we were using for the first 5 years of Struts? I'll rename them with underscores, for example: STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0. Okay? (See also: http://www.nabble.com/svn-commit%3A-r378516---struts-action-tags-STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0--t1140971.html ) -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
On 2/17/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/17/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for the format, I just do whatever Craig does :) > > Me too. I checked what we did for Shale and Scripting and followed suit. Sheesh guys ... don't forget to think for yourselves too :-). That being said, since an SVN tag is just a directory name, can it just be renamed if we decide we like something else? -Ted. Craig - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
On 2/17/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for the format, I just do whatever Craig does :) Me too. I checked what we did for Shale and Scripting and followed suit. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tag / Branch naming (was Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/)
So then the question is why Craig decided to switch from the original convention that he started almost 6 years ago and everyone else followed. ;-) I'd really prefer that we all use the same scheme, otherwise we'll just end up with a mess, and nobody will ever remember the name they're supposed to use for any given tag or branch without having to go look in the 'tags' or 'branches' directory in SVN first. Can't we all just use what we were using for the first 5 years of Struts? -- Martin Cooper On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I doubt it was intentional. I changed the release plan to match what > > actually happened, but I can change it back and 'svn mv' the tags to > > the correct names. > > Actually, both Shale and Scripting used the same format that Ted did: >STRUTS-SHALE_1.0.0 > and >STRUTS-SCRIPTING_1.0.0 > ... which makes me wonder where the tag for Scripting 1.0.1 is. > There's a branch, but no tag. Did it just get copied to the wrong > place? Don? > > -- > Wendy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
Doh, I created the tag in the wrong place. As for the format, I just do whatever Craig does :) FWIW, I'd prefer we just used "1.0.0" as the tag name and got rid of all that other stuff, but it isn't a big deal. Don Wendy Smoak wrote: On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I doubt it was intentional. I changed the release plan to match what actually happened, but I can change it back and 'svn mv' the tags to the correct names. Actually, both Shale and Scripting used the same format that Ted did: STRUTS-SHALE_1.0.0 and STRUTS-SCRIPTING_1.0.0 ... which makes me wonder where the tag for Scripting 1.0.1 is. There's a branch, but no tag. Did it just get copied to the wrong place? Don? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
On 2/17/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt it was intentional. I changed the release plan to match what > actually happened, but I can change it back and 'svn mv' the tags to > the correct names. Actually, both Shale and Scripting used the same format that Ted did: STRUTS-SHALE_1.0.0 and STRUTS-SCRIPTING_1.0.0 ... which makes me wonder where the tag for Scripting 1.0.1 is. There's a branch, but no tag. Did it just get copied to the wrong place? Don? -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
On 2/17/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why are we changing the convention for tag naming now? We have always used > underscores in the tag names, ever since the STRUTS_0_5 tag way back when. I > don't see any reason to change that now. I doubt it was intentional. I changed the release plan to match what actually happened, but I can change it back and 'svn mv' the tags to the correct names. -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: svn commit: r378516 - /struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/
Why are we changing the convention for tag naming now? We have always used underscores in the tag names, ever since the STRUTS_0_5 tag way back when. I don't see any reason to change that now. -- Martin Cooper On 2/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Author: husted > Date: Fri Feb 17 06:09:47 2006 > New Revision: 378516 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=378516&view=rev > Log: > Tagging the STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0 build (per StrutsClassicRelease130) > > Added: > struts/action/tags/STRUTS-ACTION_1.3.0/ > - copied from r378515, struts/action/trunk/ > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
