Just my opinion: 1. release the artifacts that are voted on... its 0.1 and a lot of people will likely be still in evaluation stage (likely with derby?). Obviously there are bugs, even ones that aren't known, but I think its just fine to release with known bugs... better at this stage to get the release out there and possibly draw in more people (who might find more bugs). 2. start working on the next release. besides this bug, for example there is the related issue open for improved postgresql testing, etc: personally I think this is great, maybe expanding on that idea could uncover even more bugs. the known bugs are documented in jira anyway, but workarounds or whatever could be put in the wiki in the meantime too. I don't think the next release needs to be rushed out to fix the bug quickly, either. Its not the end of the world at this point if people hit the bug and are drawn into mailing lists/svn/jira/whatever
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a workaround, but given the fact that a complex workaround is > needed to execute what should be a simple deployment, I'd wonder if we > have our priorities straight in releasing 0.1 in this condition. But > it's your call. The release process is easy for me, except the pain > needed to get everyone to have a look at the artifact and sign off on > it, and I can see no particular rush either. > > If we do have another RC, I would also like to add Postgresql-based > tests into RC9. I've got them just about ready, and will be > committing to trunk shortly. > > Karl > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is there a workaround for the issue? Can't the user create it by hand? >> >> On Jan 31, 2011, at 1:51 AM, Karl Wright wrote: >> >>> You can read the details in CONNECTORS-148. >>> >>> I hesitate to ask this because getting the votes for RC8 just >>> finished, and took the better part of a month, but should we produce >>> an RC9? This issue was considered a blocker for release, and since it >>> appears to not have been fixed, I really think we have no choice. >>> Effectively this prevents people from using PostgreSQL with >>> ManifoldCF, unless they take manual measures, and I doubt many people >>> will be willing to do that. >>> >>> Karl >> >> >> >
