If the goal is to get this TTL feature in an upcoming release then I'd say back port it to 3.5 is more realistic. We are in middle of release but I think the patch should be able to make in, if the back port can be done next week.
My only concern is that this feature is missing C client work. So we will release a new feature that only has Java client. I assume this is not a big deal, but I thought I should hear what others think about this. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > If 3.6 isn't coming anytime soon maybe I can port TTLs to 3.5. Any > objections to that? > > -Jordan > > > On Mar 12, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I had volunteered to manage it, but I got no cycles at all in the past > 2-3 months. We are also a bit late with the other 3.4 and 3.5 releases, > which helped with getting it delayed. I agree otherwise that it would be > great to have it sooner rather than later, though. > > > > -Flavio > > > >> On 11 Mar 2017, at 23:02, Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Is there any idea of date for 3.6.0? We really need TTL nodes and have > resorted to a fork internally to get it. I know that 3.5.x is the current > focus but at this rate how long, realistically, would we have 3.6.0? > >> > >> -Jordan > > > > -- Cheers Michael.
