Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue.
> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well? > So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x > released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a > “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? > >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 >> (assuming it is a bug). >> >>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the >>>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0. Are there any >>>> objections to this ? >>> >>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to. But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>
