From dev-return-13538-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Mon Nov 29 00:23:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20366 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 1289 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 1239 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 1226 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:23:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.244.253.218] (HELO mail.traeumt.net) (80.244.253.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:23:30 +0000 Received: from dahlia.fritz.box (brln-4d0ce998.pool.mediaWays.net [77.12.233.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.traeumt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 168223C285 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:23:10 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (COUCHDB-968) Duplicated IDs in _all_docs From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:23:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6679E5FF-BF3D-4935-8DED-C0808B836781@apache.org> References: <1200970.2551290897937827.JavaMail.jira@thor> <7CA14791-C5C3-435A-84C5-E7EB28872A09@apache.org> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 28 Nov 2010, at 20:58, Robert Newson wrote: > I don't think we should make a release when we have a known and = serious bug. I agree. Cheers Jan --=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Paul Davis = wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman = wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 13:55, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>> Should we hold 1.0.2 for this? >>>=20 >>> If releases are a whole bunch of work, then yes. >>>=20 >>> However, since this doesn't seem to be a (recent) regression, it = would >>> IMHO be even greater if we had this 1.0.2 and a quick 1.0.3 once = this >>> thing is fixed. >>>=20 >>=20 >> There was a separate issue in the CHANGES and NEWS that were enough = to >> veto the 1.0.2 artefacts. I'd vote to just wait for this to get = sussed >> out before moving forward with 1.0.2 again. >>=20 >> Paul >>=20 >>> Cheers, >>>=20 >>> Dirkjan >>>=20 >>=20