+1(non-binding). Its an interesting idea. I also feel, this would make the feature development more easy and can attract more users/contributors.
If everyone agrees to this, we could update the project bylaws including the (1)role & responsibility of feature branch committers, (2)merging back the feature branch changes to the mainstream (3)branch committer removal etc. Rakesh On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
