Michiel Meeuwissen wrote:
Gerard van Enk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


#6372    Open    Bug     High    1.7-rc2         Database Layer          new storage
does not create primary keys/unique indices on number field



I think it has to do with postgresql.,la nd it's quite tricky. Snce automatic generation of indices was always a problem, and I don't think it is worse now than it used te be. So it needs not be a show-stopper.


So only with postgresql this problem exists? Do we need to add a notice about this in the releasenotes?

[...]

#6214    Open    Bug     High    1.7     Database Layer          storage does
not create indices if forein keys are not supported


I think, this bug might have been fixed.


Think.....might have been fixed? Can this bug be closed or not?


[...]

#6366   Open    Bug     Medium  1.7     Applications    email builder of the email
application does not override the replace method for SCAN


How well was the email-application tested, it is actually ready for release
at all?


Don't know....I haven't had the time to test it.


[...]

#6259   Open    Bug     Medium  1.7.0   Logging         LoggerWrapper doesn't use
right values for %C %M %L


I would mark this 'WONTFIX' if this status would be available, which isn't
the case. (Can it be added?)


Is this added as a wish to the bugtracker? ;-)





#6241   Open    Wish    Medium  1.7     Taglibs         TreeTag: No way to order or
constrain steps.


This heavily limits the usefulness of TreeTag. But TreeTag is new
functionality, so it needs not be a show-stopper for 1.7.0. It could perhaps
be added to 1.7.1, of in a separate taglib release.

Perhaps Tree-tag should be explicitely marked as 'experimental' in the
documentaion, to show that you'd probably not want to use it as yet, because
this very important feature is missing (the feature is present in the
bridge's util TreeList, so it can't be very hard to wrap it in the taglib,
but I've simply had no time for that until now).


I think marking it as experimental is a good idea.


Gerard




Reply via email to