Any objections to merge this branch in trunk ? -- Olivier
2008/7/25 Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 >>>> > >>>> >>> >> >
