On Aug 7, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > is this serious enough to justify pulling current 1.0.0 release > binaries to avoid further installs putting data at risk? >
I'm not sure what Apache policy is about altering a release after the fact. It's probably up to use to decide what to do. Probably as soon as 1.0.1 is available we should pull the 1.0.0 release off of the downloads page, etc. I also think we should do a post-mortem blog post announcing the issue and the remedy, as well as digging into how we can prevent this sort of thing in the future. We should make an official announcement before the end of the weekend, with very clear steps to remedy it. (Eg: config delayed_commits to false *without restarting the server* etc) Chris > On 8 August 2010 15:08, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes. Adam already back ported it. >> >> Sent from my interstellar unicorn. >> >> On Aug 7, 2010 8:03 PM, "Noah Slater" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Time to abort the vote then? >> >> I'd like to get this fix into 1.0.1 if possible. >> >> >> On 8 Aug 2010, at 02:28, Damien Katz wrote: >> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Anyone up to create a repair tool for w... >>
