On 8 Aug 2010, at 13:48, Noah Slater wrote:
> 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...
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
