On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Paul Joseph Davis > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Chris, >> >> Do you think the uuids fix is worth a new vote? The 040-utility.t patch >> isn't enough by itself IMO. Anyone else able to think of reasons for or >> against? >> > > We have to vote on the release artifact, even if it is a formality. >
Right, just wasn't certain if it was worth a revote vs. delaying to 0.10.1. > A cursory glance at the source doesn't reveal any other raw binary > Etags, but if anyone else can look, too, it wouldn't hurt. > > The uuids fix is trivial but the bug is kinda icky... it's > intermittent, so people won't understand why they are getting random > malformed header http errors only sometime. > > I think I'm talking myself into a +1 on the retag. > You convinced me. I'm +1 for a retag. >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I noticed some UUID fixes and an etap change targeted at 0.10.x. >>> >>> Should we recall the vote for these? >>> >> > > > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchrisa.net > http://couch.io > Paul Davis
