Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8404 invoked from network); 18 May 2004 13:00:34 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 May 2004 13:00:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 34058 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2004 13:00:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 33942 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2004 13:00:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 33897 invoked by uid 98); 18 May 2004 13:00:32 -0000 Received: from tim@keow.org by hermes.apache.org by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20 (clamuko: 0.70. Clear:RC:0(69.41.247.100):. Processed in 0.090676 secs); 18 May 2004 13:00:32 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: tim@keow.org via hermes.apache.org X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.20 (Clear:RC:0(69.41.247.100):. Processed in 0.090676 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO keow.org) (69.41.247.100) by hermes.apache.org with SMTP; 18 May 2004 13:00:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 25680 invoked by uid 1000); 18 May 2004 13:25:49 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:25:48 +0100 From: Tim Larson To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Testing the cache implementation.... Message-ID: <20040518132548.GF17721@keow.org> References: <40A9C771.5040800@upaya.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40A9C771.5040800@upaya.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Spam-Rating: hermes.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:21:05AM +0100, Upayavira wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Good question! I think it's not a blocker, but others might have > >different opinion. > > > > > As I said in another mail, I'd propose we: > > * Revert > * Release > * Fix with JCS > * Release > > That way we get 2.1.5 out now, same cache as before, but with CForms. +1 if we clearly mention the problem in the release notes and either: A) Disable the buggy cache by default. or B) In the release notes include notes or link to a page describing how and why to disable the buggy cache yourself. > And as soon as we can we get 2.1.6 out with a better cache. +1 to release a 2.1.6 as soon as we can after getting a fully working cache integrated and tested. > >>IMHO this is not a blocker for the release, or is it? > >>(it's great that you guys are working on it, just trying to > >>make sure we don't let the release slip too much). > >> > >>-Bertrand The cache has worried me ever since I heard about the corruption issue. Sorry for not voicing my opinion earlier. --Tim Larson