On 24/12/2009, at 12:28 PM, Brian Fox wrote: > Aha, thanks. FWIW, that won't work next year.
Yah, it was only intended for some specific violations (and a bit of added protection at a time when people put snapshots in there somewhat regularly). At this point I think you can remove the rule altogether, run a dry-run to see what might get picked up, then add more specific exclusions (or perhaps remove from the source, depending on what they are.) - Brett > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Carlos Sanchez <[email protected]> wrote: >> that was just for dated snapshots >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Brian Fox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Does anyone remember why the exclusions file contains: >>> **-200* >>> >>> This is blocking some of the servicemix artifacts. Since rao is >>> protected by Nexus, I'm going to separate the sync and remove the >>> exclusions, but I'm wondering why this was needed to begin with? >>> >> -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
