I am not sure that  ZOOKEEPER-3342 is so important for the release.
It is only a clean up, there isn't much value for users.

We can merge it to master and ship it later.
Why do you think we should include it in 3.6.0?

Enrico


Il lun 23 dic 2019, 17:20 David Mollitor <dam6...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hello,
>
> I would also like to request ZOOKEEPER-3342.  I just cleaned up the
> latest PR.
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:17 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> > I am keeping an eye on issues that the community tagged with fixVersion =
> > 3.6.0
> >
> > This is the JIRA filter:
> >
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ZooKeeper%20%20and%20fixVersion%20%20%3D%203.6.0%20and%20resolution%20is%20EMPTY%20
> >
> > We have 3 pending works:
> > 1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3301 Enforce Quota
> > limit
> > (by Mao Ling)
> > 2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3512 Real time data
> > integrity check during broadcast time (by Fangmin)
> > 3) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1112 Add support for
> C
> > client for SASL authentication (by Damien Diederen)
> >
> > This is my point of view:
> > Patch 1) introduces wire protocol changes (new RC), it is a big work and
> we
> > are not ready to ship it, so I would defer to 3.7.0.
> >
> > Patch 2) Micheal Han and me have already reviewed it, but it is waiting
> for
> > last ack from Andor , and it will need one last rebase (I am sorry
> Fangmin)
> >
> > Patch 3) is big, and it needs careful reviews from C guys.
> >
> > So my proposal is to:
> > - move 1) and 3) to 3.7.0
> > - wait for 2)
> >
> > Once 2) lands to branch-3.6 I will run the build.
> >
> > It would be super great If you have time to build branch-3.6 and test it,
> > expecially manual tests about new features.
> > This is the link to the draft of the release notes:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/blob/branch-3.6/zookeeper-docs/src/main/resources/markdown/releasenotes.md
> >
> > Best regards
> > Enrico
> >
>

Reply via email to