I'll work on a 3.5 port regardless. If folks have issues they can comment on the ticket.
-JZ > On Mar 12, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > 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.
