On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:21:05AM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> >Good question! I think it's not a blocker, but others might have
> >different opinion.
> >
> >
> As I said in another mail, I'd propose we:
>
> * Revert
> * Release
> * Fix with JCS
> * Release
>
> That way we get 2.1.5 out now, same cache as before, but with CForms.
+1 if we clearly mention the problem in the release notes and either:
A) Disable the buggy cache by default.
or
B) In the release notes include notes or link to a page describing
how and why to disable the buggy cache yourself.
> And as soon as we can we get 2.1.6 out with a better cache.
+1 to release a 2.1.6 as soon as we can after getting a fully working
cache integrated and tested.
> >>IMHO this is not a blocker for the release, or is it?
> >>(it's great that you guys are working on it, just trying to
> >>make sure we don't let the release slip too much).
> >>
> >>-Bertrand
The cache has worried me ever since I heard about the corruption
issue. Sorry for not voicing my opinion earlier.
--Tim Larson
