Re: Tidying up on SourceForge

[Paolo Castagna <ca...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,
we had another instance of someone (i.e. Tim :-)) using SF instead of Apache svn repository:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-132?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13123747
... and missing the "MOVED TO APACHE.txt" file:
http://jena.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/jena2/MOVED%20TO%20APACHE.txt?view=markup
Because looking into jena instead of jena2.

The more people miss or wrongly use SF instead of Apache the more I become in favor of option #1 below.

Also, http://openjena.org/ should probably redirect people to  http://incubator.apache.org/jena/.

Paolo

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:34 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: 
>> On 22/09/11 14:05, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 12:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> It turns out I'd been more efficient than I remembered. There are
>>>> already text files in Jena, ARQ and other places e.g.
>>>>
>>>> http://jena.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jena/ARQ/trunk/MOVED%20TO%20APACHE.txt
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get a sense of which option people thought was best.
>>>>
>>>> Three choices:
>>>>
>>>> 1/ Delete the repository trees.  Leave one text file.  Need to use
>>>> history browsing to see anything. Will very noticeably alert anyone with
>>>> a copy currently checked out.  (Paolo's first suggestion)
>>>>
>>>> 2/ Leave for browsing but delete the build files and other stuff to stop
>>>> accidental build and use.   (Paolo's second suggestion)
>>>>
>>>> 3/ Have a "Jena has moved" file as now, maybe with a longer content than
>>>> is currently there. (current situation)
>>> I have a very mild preference for #3, i.e. leave it as is.
>>>
>>> [That way a developer who using an old version still has easy access to
>>> the corresponding sources including via browse.]
>> That's true for (2) as well - the sources are browsable without diving 
>> into history.
>>
>> The difference is that checkout-maven without looking at the file does 
>> not work in (2) but does in (3).
> 
> True.
> 
> My assumption was that anyone who is, for whatever reason, stuck with an
> older version would want the ability to do a build. Though I guess the
> build files could simply be moved/renamed or recovered from history.
> 
> Like I say, I'd be happy with #2 or indeed #1.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 

Re: Tidying up on SourceForge

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

> The more people miss or wrongly use SF instead of Apache the more I become in favor of option #1 below.

That's not exactly a clear cut statement given you have made two 
different proposals for tidying up!

> Also, http://openjena.org/ should probably redirect people to  http://incubator.apache.org/jena/.

It's a bit more complicated than simply adding a redirect at the top level.

The easiest I can think of is have a page that says "Jena has moved" and 
redirect all access to http://openjena.org/ to that.  That isn't the 
friendliest of approach though.

Not all the documentation had been moved so if you want to help migrate 
the ARQ documentation that would help.  There is also the wiki.

	Andy