You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openmeetings.apache.org by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com> on 2015/12/10 19:26:41 UTC
SVN tree restructuring
Hello all,
recently one of the Apache members point me to inconsistencies in our SVN
tree structure.
Usually component have 'plain' structure
Module
-- trunk
-- branches
-- tags
we have structure like this:
OM
--trunk
-- debian/
-- debian_package/
-- patches/
-- plugins/
-- singlewebapp/
-- site/
-- branches (of singlewebapp)
-- tags (of singlewebapp)
I propose following structure:
OM
-- application
-- trunk
-- branches
-- tags
-- debian
-- trunk (with contents of *debian_package*, *debian* should be removed
as it is GPL licensed)
-- plugin
-- trunk (plugins from trunk and branches should be moved here)
-- site
-- trunk (with contents of trunk/site)
-- branches (with 3.0.x and 2.x docs)
Additionally I would like to ask INFRA to create RW mirror of OM (or at
least OM/application) at git
please let me know in case you are against such restructuring or would like
to propose different structure
Thanks in advance
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: SVN tree restructuring
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
done, minor INFRA tasks remains :)
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:57 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> 2015-12-13 18:47 GMT+13:00 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I see no objections
> > so I'll perform the change :)
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > recently one of the Apache members point me to inconsistencies in our
> > SVN
> > > tree structure.
> > > Usually component have 'plain' structure
> > >
> > > Module
> > > -- trunk
> > > -- branches
> > > -- tags
> > >
> > > we have structure like this:
> > >
> > > OM
> > > --trunk
> > > -- debian/
> > > -- debian_package/
> > > -- patches/
> > > -- plugins/
> > > -- singlewebapp/
> > > -- site/
> > > -- branches (of singlewebapp)
> > > -- tags (of singlewebapp)
> > >
> > > I propose following structure:
> > > OM
> > > -- application
> > > -- trunk
> > > -- branches
> > > -- tags
> > > -- debian
> > > -- trunk (with contents of *debian_package*, *debian* should be
> > > removed as it is GPL licensed)
> > > -- plugin
> > > -- trunk (plugins from trunk and branches should be moved here)
> > > -- site
> > > -- trunk (with contents of trunk/site)
> > > -- branches (with 3.0.x and 2.x docs)
> > >
> > > Additionally I would like to ask INFRA to create RW mirror of OM (or at
> > > least OM/application) at git
> > >
> > > please let me know in case you are against such restructuring or would
> > > like to propose different structure
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: SVN tree restructuring
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
+1
2015-12-13 18:47 GMT+13:00 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
> I see no objections
> so I'll perform the change :)
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > recently one of the Apache members point me to inconsistencies in our
> SVN
> > tree structure.
> > Usually component have 'plain' structure
> >
> > Module
> > -- trunk
> > -- branches
> > -- tags
> >
> > we have structure like this:
> >
> > OM
> > --trunk
> > -- debian/
> > -- debian_package/
> > -- patches/
> > -- plugins/
> > -- singlewebapp/
> > -- site/
> > -- branches (of singlewebapp)
> > -- tags (of singlewebapp)
> >
> > I propose following structure:
> > OM
> > -- application
> > -- trunk
> > -- branches
> > -- tags
> > -- debian
> > -- trunk (with contents of *debian_package*, *debian* should be
> > removed as it is GPL licensed)
> > -- plugin
> > -- trunk (plugins from trunk and branches should be moved here)
> > -- site
> > -- trunk (with contents of trunk/site)
> > -- branches (with 3.0.x and 2.x docs)
> >
> > Additionally I would like to ask INFRA to create RW mirror of OM (or at
> > least OM/application) at git
> >
> > please let me know in case you are against such restructuring or would
> > like to propose different structure
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: SVN tree restructuring
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I see no objections
so I'll perform the change :)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> recently one of the Apache members point me to inconsistencies in our SVN
> tree structure.
> Usually component have 'plain' structure
>
> Module
> -- trunk
> -- branches
> -- tags
>
> we have structure like this:
>
> OM
> --trunk
> -- debian/
> -- debian_package/
> -- patches/
> -- plugins/
> -- singlewebapp/
> -- site/
> -- branches (of singlewebapp)
> -- tags (of singlewebapp)
>
> I propose following structure:
> OM
> -- application
> -- trunk
> -- branches
> -- tags
> -- debian
> -- trunk (with contents of *debian_package*, *debian* should be
> removed as it is GPL licensed)
> -- plugin
> -- trunk (plugins from trunk and branches should be moved here)
> -- site
> -- trunk (with contents of trunk/site)
> -- branches (with 3.0.x and 2.x docs)
>
> Additionally I would like to ask INFRA to create RW mirror of OM (or at
> least OM/application) at git
>
> please let me know in case you are against such restructuring or would
> like to propose different structure
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax