Done.

The public site should update within the hour.

The official distribution directory no longer has 1.0.0, but the mirrors will 
for another 24 hours.

On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:43, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> 
> On 8 Aug 2010, at 21:24, Noah Slater wrote:
> 
>> What you are suggesting isn archival of the release, which means removing it 
>> from the downloads page, the distribution directory, and the mirrors. I can 
>> do this, but I'd like to know that we have consensus first. The plan as I 
>> understood it was to archive this release at the same time as making the 
>> 1.0.1 release.
> 
> I'd like to follow that plan.
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> -- 
> 
>> 
>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:21, Robert Dionne wrote:
>> 
>>> I would also consider removing the download link for 1.0.0 and not depend 
>>> on users patching it. It's broken.
>>> 
>>> I have to believe there are users who won't and who won't read the red 
>>> sign. There's a good probability these are the kinds of users who will also 
>>> be the most upset by data loss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to