OK. I've tagged a new Release Candidate: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/tags/apache-esme-1.0-incubating/
This means that we have to vote again (sigh!) -. This time I suggest we test the tagged RC before we do a vote. D. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > For the original issue, where doing nothing simply results in a loss > of functionality, I would agree. However, I think this is a major > security hole that requires that the person deploying the software to > take a specific action. If they don't take this action, then their > deployment is vulnerable. I'm not comfortable putting the ESME stamp > on a release that we know has this kind of issue. I think it's worth > spending the extra time to address this issue and set the precedent > that we don't release software with known security holes. > > I'm sticking with my -1 at this point. I'm not trying to veto (I don't > even know if I can :-), so if a majority have voted for release after > 72 hours (which I think is the case), then feel free to go ahead. > > Ethan > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree with Bertrand. >> >> I'd like to get this release out and then do a another release soon to >> fix the errors. >> >> Right now, there are the two issues that have to be changed and Ethan >> has already changed them in SVN. >> >>>I believe that this will happen on any system and I think the fact that >>>search and the API2 doesn't work out of the box will really >>>confuse people. >> The fact that search doesn't work is IMHO the lesser of the two >> errors. Does the API2 not work at all or is the problem more the >> security one associated with the "role.api_test=integration-admin" >> setting? >> >> I'm reluctant to cut a new release , because then we'd have to start >> over again. Like I've said, I see this first release as a learning >> experience. No release will be perfect and will always include a few >> bugs. I'd rather get this release out and then do another release in 2 >> weeks time with the bug fixes. Now that we know how to do create >> releases it will be easier the next time. We should get used to >> >> I'd rather describe the two changes that have to made in the resource >> files in a blog post or on the wiki and then push for a new release. >> >> Anyone else have thoughts on this >> >> D. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ...Maybe making this two-line change to one file is small enough that we >>>> don't have to revote. I'm not sure. Maybe the mentors can weigh in.... >>> >>> Anything that changes the release artifacts needs a new vote. >>> >>> On the other hand, if there's a workaround (IIUC people can change >>> something manually to get things to work?) I suggest releasing as is. >>> >>> Nothing prevents you from making another release soon, if needed. >>> Getting used to releasing is good progress towards graduation ;-) >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >> >
