I moved trunk/Site to site/trunk and trunk/Site2 to site/branches/Site2; this seems more logical then it was (even though I may have said otherwise when it was imported) and it saves a lot of time when making new checkouts of trunk.

In any case trunk/Site and trunk/Site2 together in trunk didn't make sense, since trunk/Site2 is conceptually a branch of trunk/Site, even though it wasn't made using svn copy (and maybe contains different content?). That's why I moved it to site/branches/Site2.

Hope you all agree

I disagree that site 2 is a branch of site1, it only gained the moniker site 2 because it would be the 'second site', and by that I mean in terms of timelines.

Since there is only one main site at a time however, it conceptually is a branch of the site (even though technically it isn't; IOW, it doesn't share code (or does it?)).

Once it is ready to be deployed on spring.clan-sy.com, site/trunk can be removed, and site/branches/Site2 moved to site/trunk. (Or this could happen per sub-folder, if it is deployed that way.)

In any case I think that not cluttering the root of the repo too much (ie. having Site and Site2 in the root of the repository (and who knows how many more sites if making a new site gets popular among people with commit acces ), and that saving checkout time by moving the sites out of trunk, are good things.

On another note btw, what is in site/trunk? Is it the site Tim made or the current clan-sy?

This site we're using right now has never been handed out. I have tried to get fnordia to send me copies of the current site and nothing has come of it. It ahs never been put into svn and the only copy is the copy that's running the site right now.

Currently tims site and mine are in svn. My site and tims site share no code whatsoever, as I started mine from scratch.

Ah ok.

Well, never mind not exact strictly following the SVN convention then

If you really want I can move it around like:
site/trunk -> site/branches/tim
site/branches/Site2 -> site/trunk

Which, I guess, makes a little bit more sense if you are the one actively developing.

OTOH it's just a filename in this case (no issue with being forced to check out a site / spring code you don't need) so I don't think it matters much.

(I don't like making e.g. site/AF/{trunk,branches,tags} and site/tim/{trunk,branches,tags} because that would almost imply anyone with a Spring related website could get access to put it in Spring SVN, which goes a bit too far IMO.)

then do that instead but do it sooner rather than later.

k, if you insist

edit: done