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 <j...@apache.org> 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 <randall.le...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Yes. Adam already back ported it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my interstellar unicorn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010 8:03 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> 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... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
