You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/03 11:35:13 UTC
2.0-M4 is still under branches
This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
under branches.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
releases.
Vamsi
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
Yes, it does :o)
Vamsi
On 8/6/07, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>
> Yay, doesn't cleaning up feel good, all nice and shinny :-P
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> Removed in Revision: 563088
>
> --vamsi
>
> On 5/8/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> > I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll
> > delete it.
> >
> >
> > On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> >
> > > m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
> > > it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
> > > branch. The branch should probably be removed.
> > >
> > > --jason
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > >
> > >> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
> > >> under branches.
> > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
> > >> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
> > >> releases.
> > >>
> > >> Vamsi
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Yay, doesn't cleaning up feel good, all nice and shinny :-P
--jason
On Aug 6, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> Removed in Revision: 563088
>
> --vamsi
>
> On 5/8/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll
> delete it.
>
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
> > it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
> > branch. The branch should probably be removed.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> >> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
> >> under branches.
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
> >> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
> >> releases.
> >>
> >> Vamsi
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
Removed in Revision: 563088
--vamsi
On 5/8/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
> I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll
> delete it.
>
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
> > it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
> > branch. The branch should probably be removed.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> >> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
> >> under branches.
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
> >> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
> >> releases.
> >>
> >> Vamsi
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
I guess branches\2.0-M4 can be deleted now.
--vamsi
On 5/8/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
> I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll
> delete it.
>
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
> > it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
> > branch. The branch should probably be removed.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> >> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
> >> under branches.
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
> >> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
> >> releases.
> >>
> >> Vamsi
> >
> >
>
>
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll
delete it.
On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
> it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
> branch. The branch should probably be removed.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
>> under branches.
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
>> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
>> releases.
>>
>> Vamsi
>
>
Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there.
it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4
branch. The branch should probably be removed.
--jason
On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still
> under branches.
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ .
> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone
> releases.
>
> Vamsi