Done.

Emmanuel

Brett Porter a écrit :
Anyone have any thoughts on these, or should I just go ahead and make the changes?

(Sorry Emmanuel, I know you've been offline a bit recently :)

Cheers,
Brett

On 25/07/2007, at 5:13 PM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:

Thanks Brett, I'll review them.

Emmanuel

Brett Porter a écrit :
Hi,
I took a look through future for things that could be adjusted, and came up with the following list. I didn't want to 'just do it', since I'm not that close to the status of the project right now, so if someone could review these it'd be much appreciated.
to close:
CONTINUUM-933 (acegi branch)
CONTINUUM-450 (the wagon notifier does this?)
CONTINUUM-37 (superceded)
CONTINUUM-516 (can't see why it's neeeded, enqueue is fast)
CONTINUUM-924 (already exists?)
CONTINUUM-841 (duplicate of 678, no longer an issue)
CONTINUUM-1112 (seems fixed already)
CONTINUUM-882 (from acegi)
CONTINUUM-938 (I think it no longer applies - test and close)
CONTINUUM-960 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-128 (no longer needed)
CONTINUUM-640 (I think it dupes 347?)
CONTINUUM-467 (I think it dupes 347?)
CONTINUUM-344 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-721 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-737 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-660 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-751 (out of date?)
CONTINUUM-752 (out of date?)
CONTINUUM-1176 (out of date)
CONTINUUM-1247 (not a Continuum bug?)
CONTINUUM-1248 (not a Continuum bug?)
CONTINUUM-1249 (not a Continuum bug?)
CONTINUUM-1253 (won't fix - use mvn deploy instead)
to schedule for 1.1:
CONTINUUM-692 (possibly - talks about profile dependency being the only blocker)
CONTINUUM-347 (documentation)
CONTINUUM-815 (documentation)
CONTINUUM-1063 (just do it)
CONTINUUM-618 (it's really annoying, and simple to fix)
CONTINUUM-1037 (seems a fatal flaw in Ant use)
CONTINUUM-811 (documentation)
CONTINUUM-1079 (the feature exists, it's just not visible due to this problem and probably related security issues)
CONTINUUM-1310 (goes with above)
CONTINUUM-1333
CONTINUUM-1265 (NPE should generally be fixable)
CONTINUUM-1255 (is ugly, should be easy to disable)
Thanks,
Brett




Reply via email to