On Jan 5, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> It's more than just a folder rename, since we have to reconfigure
> stuff on the server.
> Hyrum: what kind of "related" stuff are you talking about? And why
> would it then be in a folder called "site" when it isn't ON the site?
I'm specifically thinking of stuff used to generate the site, should we chose to go that route. Look at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/ for an example (that directory is our equivalent of /subversion/site/).
Doing a move now, when we don't really have much content is much easier than trying to do it down the road. It doesn't hurt us at all, but opens up options, should we chose to use them.
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 13:56, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> We recently moved all of our web content out of trunk and into it's own top-level directory,
>>> called site/. I propose we move it once more to site/publish/. This would allow us to put
>>> additional related-but-not-published material in the site/ directory, and follows precedent in
>>> other Apache projects.
>>> If there are no objections, I'll do the move and file a corresponding ticket with the infra group
>> It is ultimately just a folder name in the repos, so I cannot see
>> anyone objecting ... and I do not. I am curious what sort of items
>> would go in /site though?
>> Mark Phippard
Received on 2010-01-05 20:07:11 CET