That's a great idea, I'm +1. -Flavio
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 21:13, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to recommend that we consider a special 3.4 branch for this. > (sorry I'm late to the party but I was on vacation till today, just back). > > We could create a 3.4+ssl branch, or something like that, and give special > permissions for non-committers to commit to the branch. People that are > interested in this feature but not committers. Once the folks working on > this are satisfied the PMC could do a special "3.4.9+ssl" release artifact > (say just a tarball), separate from the 3.4.x line, for folks that are > interested to use it. This would require minimal oversight by the > committers. I believe other components are doing this, typically for > feature development before being merged back in, but it would enable > interested parties to get access to ssl prior to 3.5 becoming stable. It > would also benefit 3.5 in the sense that anything we learn on that branch > would be merged into the trunk - fixes say. > > Patrick > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Luciano Afranllie <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Quick question, ZK-2125 depends on >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2069 and >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2072? >> >> It seems to be given the description of ZK-2063... >> >> Regards >> Luciano >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think you're talking about porting the patch of ZK-2125. I haven't >>> really assessed how much work it would be to backport it, but it is >>> possibly not hard. >>> >>> -Flavio >>> >>>> On 01 Jul 2016, at 15:54, Luciano Afranllie <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Flavio >>>> >>>> What about back porting in our own private fork while we wait for the >>> 3.5? >>>> I would like your help understanding how easy/difficult this may be. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Luciano >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Luciano, >>>>> >>>>> The 3.4 branch is stable and we are only releasing bug fixes at this >>>>> point, so it is currently not an option to back port. >>>>> >>>>> We are all pretty eager to see the 3.5 branch stable, and we are in >> the >>>>> process of voting the release candidate for 3.5.2, but that's still >>> tagged >>>>> as alpha. We don't have a current plan for 3.5.3 yet, but I believe no >>> one >>>>> here wants to wait too long have it out. I suspect that it won't be >>> before >>>>> 3 months from now given the pace that we have been releasing, though. >>>>> >>>>> -Flavio >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 01 Jul 2016, at 13:07, Luciano Afranllie < >> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi there >>>>>> >>>>>> We are in the need to have SSL support in Zookeeper in order for our >>>>>> solution to be FIPS complaint. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course one option is to wait for 3.5 to be released but given we >>> are a >>>>>> little bit time constrained we want to consider an alternative of >>>>>> backporting SSL support from 3.5 to 3.4 (we are using 3.4.8) >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think this is doable? Can you please tell me the impact of >> doing >>>>>> this and if you think it is a viable alternative? We have experience >>> with >>>>>> Java but not with ZK at development level. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of, course if you have a rough estimate about when ZK 3.5 may be >>> released >>>>>> that may help in our decision too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Luciano >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>
