continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Branching for local repository related changes
Date Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:47:47 GMT
Hi,
Tested with a bigger 1.1 db : all looks fine.

--
Olivier


2008/7/25 Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>:
> 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 <emmanuel.venisse@gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/7/24 Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@gmail.com>:
>>> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@gmail.com> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message