On 8 Aug 2010, at 13:48, Noah Slater wrote: > Do we need to abort 0.11.2 as well?
0.11.x does not have this commit as far as I can see. Cheers Jan -- > > 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... >>>>> >>> >> >
