From dev-return-13529-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Sun Nov 28 19:58:41 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35713 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 83269 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 83224 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 -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 83216 invoked by uid 99); 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:58:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert.newson@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.52] (HELO mail-qw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.216.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:58:36 +0000 Received: by qwf7 with SMTP id 7so3220806qwf.11 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:58:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DISV0OhhrzH7UtvxN9UEjNZI+2XWugvQFLcJGtKIafM=; b=vcAP6GC7kFfUYge2sn0F83G6sOrWn3BvF/PpMmZjXX7jkgH9m507Yi1+Q6vx+JLqbA 76nFWt8JlqFol89YRTv9eNOG1gCxB934wja8D+IWmLSgR10Y3KwH9FiY45HT/IAyEeF8 7mmMXBcaAN4lHLpj9S28P/eyLFBppJpWKue6k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=EW2EO5rvd/n225CeJ2xUcmtSfyFmg6Ff4r5rVUNcWcs2cb55Y4SBLxM9oIrHUZovjC 6qkWvwyVyeaHurXVmLhqRBqXLz1QF+q8PsVicuOtRsPoeouZTPEspOjf664aFwzEUBYU OA4hUjWH7SI39titnch+rcLHn5vC6S7OHgW2M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.140.147 with SMTP id i19mr4403625qau.395.1290974294900; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:58:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.176.137 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:58:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1200970.2551290897937827.JavaMail.jira@thor> <7CA14791-C5C3-435A-84C5-E7EB28872A09@apache.org> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:58:14 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (COUCHDB-968) Duplicated IDs in _all_docs From: Robert Newson To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I don't think we should make a release when we have a known and serious bug. 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? >> >> If releases are a whole bunch of work, then yes. >> >> 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. >> > > 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. > > Paul > >> Cheers, >> >> Dirkjan >> >