On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:37, J Chris Anderson wrote: > Devs, > > I have started a document which we will use when announcing the bug. I plan > to move the document from this wiki location to the http://couchdb.apache.org > site before the end of the day. Please review and edit the document before > then. > > http://wiki.couchone.com/page/post-mortem > > I have a section called "The Bug" which needs a technical description of the > error and the fix. I'm hoping Adam or Randall can write this, as they are > most familiar with the issues. > > Once it is ready, we should do our best to make sure our users get a chance > to read it.
I made a few more minor adjustments (see page history when you are logged in) and have nothing more to add myself, but I'd appreciate if Adam or Randall could add a few more tech bits. -- In the meantime, I've put up a BIG FAT WARNING on the CouchDB downloads page: http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html I plan to update the warning with a link to the post-mortem once that is done. -- Thanks everybody for being on top of this! Cheers Jan -- > > Thanks, > Chris > > On Aug 8, 2010, at 5:16 AM, Robert Newson wrote: > >> That was also Adam's conclusion (data loss bug confined to 1.0.0). >> >> B. >> >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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... >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
