Hi, Tested with a bigger 1.1 db : all looks fine. -- Olivier
2008/7/25 Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have committed the patch in the branch. > I have changed the application.xml in the webapp to handle two new > fields in an object. > And I can start with a 1.1 db. > I will try this with a copy of my production company continuum > database which is more huge. > > -- > Olivier > > 2008/7/24 Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> 2008/7/24 Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> FYI, I'm planning to create a branch to apply and review Marica's work >>> >> on CONTINUUM-782 (local repository purging) and related issues -- >>> >> separate local repos per group, etc. >>> >> >>> >> It looks like CONTINUUM-1759 (ability to delete working copies >>> >> associated with releases) was combined with 782, though I don't >>> >> immediately see how it's related. >>> > >>> > I was waiting for Marica's iCLA to be recorded, which has now >>> > happened. However, I'm booked for the next week, so if anyone else >>> > wants to review and commit this, feel free. I won't get back to it >>> > until next Wednesday at the earliest. >>> >>> I can work on this in a dedicated branch. I have a first (small) look >>> at the patch and I have seen model change. If we can not have this (or >>> having a upgrade tool ;-) ). >>> >> >> For 1.2, I'd prefer to not change the db schema. >> >> Emmanuel >> >> >>> >>> > >>> > I like it. :) A branch may not be necessary unless someone else sees >>> > something that needs more work or discussion. >>> > >>> > One slight concern I have is that it introduces a dependency on an >>> > Archiva jar. It was a snapshot dependency, but Archiva just released >>> > 1.1 so that's no longer a problem. But is this something that Archiva >>> > intends for re-use, or just something internal to it? >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Wendy >>> > >>> >> >
