Do we need to abort 0.11.2 as well? On 8 Aug 2010, at 11:45, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> > 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... >>>> >> >
