incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Data loss
Date Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:28:46 GMT

On 8 Aug 2010, at 21:49, Noah Slater wrote:

> Done.
> 
> The public site should update within the hour.
> 
> The official distribution directory no longer has 1.0.0, but the mirrors will for another
24 hours.

Randall was so kind to update the technical details in Chris's wiki page. I took the liberty
(and help from Noah) to add it on the site under notice/1.0.1.html (as a release notice for
the upcoming 1.0.1 release. I also updated the downloads page to point to the notice. It'll
be up with in the hour (or two).

Thanks again all for getting this resolved so quickly. The team spirit here really makes this
a fun project :)

Cheers
Jan
-- 

> 
> On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:43, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 21:24, Noah Slater wrote:
>> 
>>> What you are suggesting isn archival of the release, which means removing it
from the downloads page, the distribution directory, and the mirrors. I can do this, but I'd
like to know that we have consensus first. The plan as I understood it was to archive this
release at the same time as making the 1.0.1 release.
>> 
>> I'd like to follow that plan.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> -- 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 20:21, Robert Dionne wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I would also consider removing the download link for 1.0.0 and not depend
on users patching it. It's broken.
>>>> 
>>>> I have to believe there are users who won't and who won't read the red sign.
There's a good probability these are the kinds of users who will also be the most upset by
data loss
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:37, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Devs,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have started a document which we will use when announcing the bug.
I plan to move the document from this wiki location to the http://couchdb.apache.org site
before the end of the day. Please review and edit the document before then.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://wiki.couchone.com/page/post-mortem
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have a section called "The Bug" which needs a technical description
of the error and the fix. I'm hoping Adam or Randall can write this, as they are most familiar
with the issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Once it is ready, we should do our best to make sure our users get
a chance to read it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I made a few more minor adjustments (see page history when you are logged
in) and have nothing more to add myself, but I'd appreciate if Adam or Randall could add a
few more tech bits.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the meantime, I've put up a BIG FAT WARNING on the CouchDB downloads
page:  
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://couchdb.apache.org/downloads.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> I plan to update the warning with a link to the post-mortem once that
is done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks everybody for being on top of this!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2010, at 5:16 AM, Robert Newson wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That was also Adam's conclusion (data loss bug confined to 1.0.0).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> B.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 13:48, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do we need to abort 0.11.2 as well?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 0.11.x does not have this commit as far as I can see.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 11:45, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 06:35, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Dave Cottlehuber
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is this serious enough to justify pulling
current 1.0.0 release
>>>>>>>>>>>> binaries to avoid further installs putting
data at risk?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what Apache policy is about altering
a release after the fact. It's probably up to use to decide what to do.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Altering releases are a no-no. The only real procedure
is to release a new version and deprecate the old one, while optionally keeping it around
for posterity.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably as soon as 1.0.1 is available we should
pull the 1.0.0 release off of the downloads page, etc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> +1.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I also think we should do a post-mortem blog
post announcing the issue and the remedy, as well as digging into how we can prevent this
sort of thing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We should make an official announcement before
the end of the weekend, with very clear steps to remedy it. (Eg: config delayed_commits to
false *without restarting the server* etc)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I think so, too.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 August 2010 15:08, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Adam already back ported it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my interstellar unicorn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010 8:03 PM, "Noah Slater"
<nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to abort the vote then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get this fix into 1.0.1 if
possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8 Aug 2010, at 02:28, Damien Katz
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone up to create a repair tool
for w...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message