esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ethan Jewett <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-esme-incubating-1.0 - (Yes Again :->)
Date Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:49:44 GMT
Hi all,

For the original issue, where doing nothing simply results in a loss
of functionality, I would agree. However, I think this is a major
security hole that requires that the person deploying the software to
take a specific action. If they don't take this action, then their
deployment is vulnerable. I'm not comfortable putting the ESME stamp
on a release that we know has this kind of issue. I think it's worth
spending the extra time to address this issue and set the precedent
that we don't release software with known security holes.

I'm sticking with my -1 at this point. I'm not trying to veto (I don't
even know if I can :-), so if a majority have voted for release after
72 hours (which I think is the case), then feel free to go ahead.


On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Richard Hirsch <> wrote:
> I agree with Bertrand.
> I'd like to get this release out and then do a another release soon to
> fix the errors.
> Right now, there are the two issues that have to be changed and Ethan
> has already changed them in SVN.
>>I believe that this will happen on any system and I think the fact that search and
the API2 doesn't work out of the box will really
>>confuse people.
> The fact that search doesn't work is IMHO the lesser of the two
> errors. Does the API2 not work at all or is the problem more the
> security one associated with the "role.api_test=integration-admin"
> setting?
> I'm reluctant to cut a new release , because then we'd have to start
> over again. Like I've said, I see this first release as a learning
> experience. No release will be perfect and will always include a few
> bugs. I'd rather get this release out and then do another release in 2
> weeks time with the bug fixes.  Now that we know how to do create
> releases it will be easier the next time.  We should get used to
> I'd rather describe the two changes that have to made in the resource
> files in a blog post or on the wiki and then push for a new release.
> Anyone else have thoughts on this
> D.
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Ethan Jewett <> wrote:
>>> ...Maybe making this two-line change to one file is small enough that we
>>> don't have to revote. I'm not sure. Maybe the mentors can weigh in....
>> Anything that changes the release artifacts needs a new vote.
>> On the other hand, if there's a workaround (IIUC people can change
>> something manually to get things to work?) I suggest releasing as is.
>> Nothing prevents you from making another release soon, if needed.
>> Getting used to releasing is good progress towards graduation ;-)
>> -Bertrand

View raw message