Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.
Thanks to Alex for his work on harry! On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > >> > >
