On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey > > TL;DR; Please upgrade to plainbox 0.13.1 or plainbox 0.14 snapshot > ASAP as plainbox 0.13 is critically broken.
Thanks for sending out this notice. I forwarded it to another mailing list that needed to know (ask me later), and this is a heads-up that plainbox 0.13.1 (stable) and 0.14.dev (dev snapshot) with the fixes for these critical bugs are now available in the corresponding PPAs. We decided to cherry-pick the fix directly to stable (0.13.1) since it was broken anyway; the cherry-picked patches don't touch anything else so should be pretty safe. Apologies for the inconvenience. - Daniel > > Earlier today we have started investigating two issues: > > * https://bugs.launchpad.net/plainbox/+bug/1375158 > * https://bugs.launchpad.net/plainbox/+bug/1375724 > > Both bugs are critical and crippling. Both are recent regressions > introduced during the 0.13 release cycle. The first of the two is now > fixed. This is the bug that both Tai and Sam experienced today. The > good news is that this bug is now gone. The bad news is that this bug > is destroying the serialized session state thus making recovery > impossible. Affected machines need to be re-tested. One cannot just > 'plainbox session export' the logs again. > > The second bug is less serious but equally crippling. It's a follow up > to the recent XML control characters issue that we've fixed before > (twice, this is the second bug and third iteration of this patch). > > I've included *all* of the discussion about those bugs so that anyone > following can cross-check my logic and verify that the bug is > correctly identified and the discovered issue is fixed. > > Daniel will release an emergency 0.13.1 release and publish it in the > stable PPA. The release will be made from plainbox-v0.13 with the two > fixes cherry-picked (they are both single patches so this is easy). > The relevant branches are linked to the bug reports. > > As for what we've learned: I would like to amend the release candidate > testing procedure to include a test where we resume a newly created, > suspended session. We can even work on automating that via a > fully-automatic test case (a shell script anyone can run). Performing > this test would have caught one of the issues and would have prevented > us from having to re-test machines as the second bug can be simply > fixed in the field allowing existing test results to be recovered. > > If you have any questions about this feel free to contact us directly > either in the internal #Cert channel, on #checkbox or via email. > > NOTE: to those that wish to reply on one of the mailing lists, please > note that [email protected] is a public mailing list. > > Best regards > Zygmunt Krynicki > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~checkbox-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
