On 20/04/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My bug (641) is probably not a blocker, as it was only on improper > shutdown and probably existed in 1.0.2. > > I haven't reproduced 660 - is it reliably reproduced? >
Well it happens each time in my project. > At this point, I would like to go ahead with the release as it is still > significantly better than 1.0.2, and then worry about straightening out > jpox (again) in 1.1. > > WDYT? Well. I also agree that 1.0.3 is a significant improvement over 1.0.2 (which is practically not usable at all) and should be released. But I also think that Continuum has few "flawed" releases left before no one would try out the new bugfixes. So in the future (1.1) we should make extra care of the quality before released. > > - Brett > > Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 20:31 +0200, Kaare Nilsen wrote: > >> The speed improvements are impressive.. thanx for that !! > >> I still would like to have my instance running for a couple of days to > >> test the memoryleak in more detail, and also i have found a bug that > >> when importing a multiproject one or more of the modules are added > >> twice (dupplicates), and then it is not possible to delete one of them > >> (I am going to file a jira issue tomorrow when i have the stacktrace > >> available). > > > > I'm voting -0 on this release as there seems to be new issue that has > > come up lately which I at least would like Emmanuel to take a look at > > before continuing with the release. > > > > The issue is the one reported by Kaare Nilsen and Jorg (and possibly > > related to 641[1]). > > > > [1] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-641 > > > > -- > > Trygve > > >
