On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-23, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> At this point, I'm ready to run with the consensus, whatever that is.
>
> Having read the discussion elsethread, I now consider this a blocker and
> that also seems to be the consensus. So we can't release 1.7.0 with
> this bug; it has to be fixed. That in turn means the supposed 'RC1' is
> no longer an RC at all. If the bug were found after RC release, the
> process would be different, but we have to draw the line somewhere and
> the moment of release is the obvious place to draw it.
>
> Fix it ASAP and release an RC that we believe is a true candidate at the
> moment of release.
>
> I think we handled this the right way. Although some of us wanted the
> RC to go ahead with the known bug, because we were not convinced it's
> serious enough, a developer's veto means it's not an RC. We must
> resolve that one way or the other before moving on, even if we don't
> like the delay.
So the grander feeling seems to be: scuttle rc1 (which already has the
votes for release) and reroll an rc2. The fix for the 'upgrade with
lock' issue is already on 1.7.x, so we can do this pretty much
whenever we'd like. I'm inclined to do it tomorrow, following the
normal pattern.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Received on 2011-08-24 13:38:56 CEST