For MRM-561 I forgot to say that there's a work around : You delete the managed repository.
Cheers Arnaud On 23/10/2007, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23/10/2007, at 6:52 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote: > > > On 10/22/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This release has a few exceptions visible to the user. (MRM-560, > >> MRM-561) > >> Should we fix these, and wait on 1.0-beta-3? or just make 1.0-beta-4 > >> come out quickly after 1.0-beta-3? > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to "re-do" builds after they are tagged > > and made available to download for testing. > > Agreed. You can't veto a release - so it's really up to whether they > are that bad that many change their votes within the 72 hours, or the > release manager decides not to go ahead (because they think it's bad > enough, or they see a potential legal issue, or it includes code that > was vetoed or something along those lines). > > > > > We could decide not to officially release it, but on the surface those > > two issues don't seem serious enough to me. (Error on the dependency > > tree web page, and overzealous logging?) > > Let's not forget that two of them would have existed in 1.0-beta-2, > so a release isn't harming anyone. > > MRM-561 is disappointing, since it's a regression, but not critical > enough to block the release IMO. > > If it were a final release I'd say differently. > > - Brett > > -- > Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/ > -- .......................................................... Arnaud HERITIER .......................................................... OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com www.octo.com | blog.octo.com .......................................................... ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org www.apache.org | maven.apache.org ...........................................................
