On 8 Aug 2010, at 06:35, J Chris Anderson wrote: > > 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.
Altering releases are a no-no. The only real procedure is to release a new version and deprecate the old one, while optionally keeping it around for posterity. > Probably as soon as 1.0.1 is available we should pull the 1.0.0 release off > of the downloads page, etc. +1. > 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) I think so, too. Cheers Jan -- > > >> 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... >>> >
