You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> on 2006/07/04 08:40:26 UTC
m2migration branch is available
Hi,
Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
*without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
The branch is available at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll
create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not
all is/will be lost ;-)
Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Hey, no worries. I don't have the spare cycles to work on the M2
migration myself, so whatever method you guys think is best, I'm all
for it. I just wanted to make sure you're prepared for some pain down
the road if you go the branch path, beacuse I think it will be nasty.
If I were doing this work, I think I'd want to escape RTC to do it --
perhaps by freezing development on trunk, working on a branch, then
voting to replace trunk with branch under the rules for
revolutionaries. Or by getting the PMC to bless working on M2 in
trunk without RTC applying to the M2 changes. Or by getting the PMC
to +1 the principle and leave you free to implement the specifics as
needed. Or by claiming that the M2 build is broken and that's clearly
a bug and therefore you can do all this work under CTR for bug fixes.
Again, if you think you can be equally productive working in a branch
and then generating an RTC patch and applying it back to trunk, more
power to you, and don't let me stand in the way. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 7/5/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
> > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
> > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
> > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
> > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that).
> ...
> > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
> > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
> > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
> > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
> > my concern before taking this approach.
>
> (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me).
>
> I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I
> paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not
> need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch
> and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of
> the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might
> eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually
> once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap
> where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able
> to be committed to trunk. It may work.
>
> I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going
> to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-))
>
> > Aaron
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that
>> there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was
>> because it's the 4th of July.
>
> Ok, you *might* be right, but should I vote for creating a branch for
> the work I think should be done in a branch? AFAIR, a branch doesn't
> need a vote, does it?
>
> I understand I could've been read as ignoring Aaron's points, which I
> didn't mean to have done. I do appologize for it.
No worries. :)
To be sure a branch doesn't need a vote. But this is a different
situation. Multiple people are working on getting this done, it's not a
the sandbox effort of an individual, e.g. Jan's servlet stuff or David's
JACC stuff.
Discussions are still going on and I have proposed that working in trunk
on m2 still follows the RTC mandate in that m2 is not being used yet.
Once the m2 team is happy w/ what we have, an RTC can be formed. Any
minor changes, I don't fore see the need, that need to be done along the
way can be handled with RTCs. Working in this manner has the added
benefit of limiting the scope of the effort to just getting m2 working.
Regards,
Alan
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that
> there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was
> because it's the 4th of July.
Ok, you *might* be right, but should I vote for creating a branch for
the work I think should be done in a branch? AFAIR, a branch doesn't
need a vote, does it?
I understand I could've been read as ignoring Aaron's points, which I
didn't mean to have done. I do appologize for it.
> Alan
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
>> concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
>> to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
>> revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
>> understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that).
> ...
>> I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
>> branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
>> commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
>> this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
>> my concern before taking this approach.
>
> (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed
> at me).
>
> I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I
> paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not
> need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch
> and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of
> the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might
> eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually
> once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap
> where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able
> to be committed to trunk. It may work.
>
> I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going
> to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-))
I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that
there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was
because it's the 4th of July.
Regards,
Alan
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
> concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
> to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
> revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
> understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that).
...
> I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
> branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
> commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
> this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
> my concern before taking this approach.
(It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me).
I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I
paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not
need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch
and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of
the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might
eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually
once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap
where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able
to be committed to trunk. It may work.
I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going
to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-))
> Aaron
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Jason,
INAL, but sections 10 B-E in their open source contract don't sound
appropriate for ASF use to me.
http://www.perforce.com/perforce/contracts/open_source.pdf
We wouldn't want the situation where we have to uninstall it or Apache
and the development community has to start paying for it after it is
entrenched into our projects.
Regards,
John
Jason Dillon wrote:
> FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
> qualifying open source usage:
>
> http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
>
> :-)
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> Jacek,
>>
>> When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
>> concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
>> to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
>> revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
>> understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
>> often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated
>> and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in
>> the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
>> directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a
>> branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where
>> we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
>> Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
>> been through that before.
>>
>> I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
>> branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
>> commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
>> this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
>> my concern before taking this approach.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
>>> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
>>> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
>>>
>>> The branch is available at
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
>>>
>>> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll
>>> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
>>> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not
>>> all is/will be lost ;-)
>>>
>>> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
>>> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
>>> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
>>> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>>>
>
>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
> just wishful thinking?
Well... both I guess. But given our reality its more of the later.
> Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory
> layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to
> HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths
> will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a
> freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're
> just using the branch to work around RTC.
The reason why I mention it over and over... is that Perforce can
handle automating a bunch of this work.
For example, to solve the issue you mention about patches. If you
know the change number that the patch was done against, then you
could create a new temporary branch based on that change number, then
apply the patch, and then merge the private branch back into the
trunk. Perforce is smart enough to realize what needs to merge and
what has been merged already since it tracks integrations. It also
knows what been moved and deleted and when you merge the changes will
follow the code wherever it was moved to.
It really is an excellent tool... for highly branched and dynamic
environments Perforce really shines.
--jason
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
>> qualifying open source usage:
>>
>> http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > Jacek,
>> >
>> > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
>> > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this
>> branch
>> > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
>> > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge
>> (and I
>> > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
>> > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then
>> recreated
>> > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's
>> something in
>> > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
>> > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging
>> from a
>> > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation
>> where
>> > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
>> > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
>> > been through that before.
>> >
>> > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
>> > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
>> > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that
>> means
>> > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to
>> address
>> > my concern before taking this approach.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work
>> pertaining to
>> >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work
>> on it
>> >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
>> >>
>> >> The branch is available at
>> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
>> >>
>> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch,
>> >> we'll
>> >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
>> >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope
>> >> not
>> >> all is/will be lost ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
>> >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/
>> should
>> >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their
>> vacation,
>> >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
>> >>
>> >> Jacek
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jacek Laskowski
>> >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Sent a note in a related thread asking to have RTC suspended for this activity and let the work
proceed in trunk directly.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
> just wishful thinking?
>
> Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory
> layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to
> HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths
> will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a
> freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're
> just using the branch to work around RTC.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
>> qualifying open source usage:
>>
>> http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > Jacek,
>> >
>> > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
>> > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
>> > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
>> > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
>> > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
>> > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated
>> > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in
>> > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
>> > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a
>> > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where
>> > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
>> > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
>> > been through that before.
>> >
>> > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
>> > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
>> > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
>> > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
>> > my concern before taking this approach.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
>> >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
>> >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
>> >>
>> >> The branch is available at
>> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
>> >>
>> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch,
>> >> we'll
>> >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
>> >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope
>> >> not
>> >> all is/will be lost ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
>> >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
>> >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
>> >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
>> >>
>> >> Jacek
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jacek Laskowski
>> >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
just wishful thinking?
Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory
layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to
HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths
will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a
freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're
just using the branch to work around RTC.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
> qualifying open source usage:
>
> http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
>
> :-)
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > Jacek,
> >
> > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
> > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
> > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
> > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
> > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
> > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated
> > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in
> > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
> > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a
> > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where
> > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
> > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
> > been through that before.
> >
> > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
> > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
> > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
> > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
> > my concern before taking this approach.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
> >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
> >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
> >>
> >> The branch is available at
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
> >>
> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch,
> >> we'll
> >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
> >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope
> >> not
> >> all is/will be lost ;-)
> >>
> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
> >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
> >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
> >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
> >>
> >> Jacek
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jacek Laskowski
> >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
> >>
>
>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
qualifying open source usage:
http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
:-)
--jason
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Jacek,
>
> When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
> concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
> to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
> revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
> understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
> often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated
> and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in
> the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
> directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a
> branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where
> we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
> Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
> been through that before.
>
> I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
> branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
> commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
> this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
> my concern before taking this approach.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
>> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
>> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
>>
>> The branch is available at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
>>
>> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch,
>> we'll
>> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
>> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope
>> not
>> all is/will be lost ;-)
>>
>> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
>> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
>> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
>> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Jacek,
When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've
often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated
and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in
the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending
directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a
branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where
we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD.
Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've
been through that before.
I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means
this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
my concern before taking this approach.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
>
> The branch is available at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
>
> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll
> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will
> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not
> all is/will be lost ;-)
>
> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us
> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should
> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation,
> so let's do it before they come back home ;-))
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>