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 Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:13:11 GMT
Any objections to merge this branch in trunk ?

--
Olivier

2008/7/25 Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>:
> 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