Hi Johan! first of all, thanks for the openness and announcements on the list(s). As my question is post-factum, I am not including the lists(s), but I'd still like to collect some feedback from those "involved": Do I understand the stated facts correctly: that the software (the API) was working as intended, but the (auto-)generated documentation was in error? If this is the case, than I (personally, not wearing my WG co-chair hat) would strongly lean towards Rüdiger's position. In that case I would rather issue an alert regarding the documentation error and a correction. The approach as proposed to still go through the TEST cycle was the correct one, imho. Btw, I do not easily agree to label the problem as "service impacting, if the software is correct, but the documentation is in error. If it were the other was 'round, then yes, the label would be correct in my opinion. Johan Åhlén wrote:
Dear Tim,
Instead of quickly fixing this issue and creating a new release today we've decided to halt the deployment of any new release for now.
This is very embarrassing and we're very sorry for this. We obviously put too much trust in the framework that generates the documentation and we don't have the proper mechanisms in place to validate the correctness of the documentation generated. We will give this our fullest attention the coming days and expect to have a working solution sometime next week.
In the meantime I hope the existing documentation in TEST Database contains the information you need to proceed with your project. If you have any questions about how the API works then please contact us directly and we'll gladly help you out.
Kind regards,
Johan Åhlén Assistant Manager Database RIPE NCC
Regards, Wilfried.