null value seems to be fine, I'll commit and try things out on the zone On 8/1/07, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think null value will be enough. I think we'll need to test the null > value in the UI but it isn't a problem. > > Emmanuel > > Brett Porter a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I've narrowed down the problem in upgrading from alpha-2 to beta-1 to > > the following model change: > > > > <field> > > <name>buildDefinition</name> > > <version>1.1.0+</version> > > <association xml.reference="true" stash.part="true" > > jpox.dependent="false"> > > <type>BuildDefinition</type> > > </association> > > </field> > > > > > > The problem here is that Continuum has no idea how to pre-populate the > > value for this. Should we/can we simply add a default value of null for > > this? Or will the data management app need some smarts to set it to the > > default build definition where it doesn't exist? > > > > Thanks, > > Brett > > > > > > > > > >
-- jesse mcconnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
