How about a simpler alternative to the proposed flag for reconfig: a check in the code that requires ACLs to be set. If people want to use reconfig, they should use ACLs too.
What do you think ? Alex On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > I would say if in doubt add a safety. (a config parameter to turn it > off). Cost is almost zero and worst case it will just give us peace of > mind. ;-) > > Patrick > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > ok, thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into it. For reconfig I think > its > > pretty clear that its an admin > > functionality. I just always imagined that its controlled via acls, but I > > understand > > the concerns now. > > > > getConfig returns the dynamic config (list of all servers with all ports > > and quorum system if defined) > > and has an option to filter that info and just return the server > connection > > string (server and client port only). > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I don't think that getConfig should be an admin functionality. It is > >> > essential for client-side re-balancing > >> > that we implemented (all clients shoudl be able to detect > configuration > >> > changes via getConfig). It could > >> > be hidden somewhat by defining higher-level re-balancing > >> > policies (ZOOKEEPER-2016) > >> > but there hasn't been enough progress on that. Perhaps instead > getConfig > >> > should be controlled > >> > by a separate flag ? > >> > > >> > >> I believe that the Hadoop community has something we could use: > >> > >> > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/InterfaceClassification.html > >> (whether through annotations or just documenting it in the API javadoc) > >> > >> e.g. we could list getConfig as public/unstable for example and still > >> ship it as GA. That would mark it as something that could change re > >> API policy. > >> > >> Is the entire config exposed through getConfig? If so then we might > >> want to enable/disable it with a flag similar to reconfig. Might be > >> safer to just do that if we're not sure. > >> > >> > >> Re classification - we could do the same thing with reconfig, but I > >> think that would be a mistake. If we feel strongly where it should > >> live long term we should just move it now. > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Hi Patrick, Flavio, > >> >> > > >> >> > Since there seems to be consensus on this, I can add this flag, > unless > >> >> > someone else wants to. I assume that getConfig should still work > >> >> regardless > >> >> > of the flag ? is there a security concern with clients knowing the > >> list > >> >> of > >> >> > servers? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> We've always hidden that detail from users. We don't even expose > which > >> >> server you're connected to today. I remember Ben (and perhaps > Flavio?) > >> >> highlighting this as important to maintain although I'm not super > >> >> familiar with the specifics on why. It made sense to me though from > >> >> the perspective that we don't want clients to make assumptions that > >> >> probably shouldn't. > >> >> > >> >> My thinking is that we should 1) add a config option to enable > >> >> reconfig (off by default), 2) move reconfig specific functionality > >> >> from ZooKeeper.java (including getconfig) into an "admin" package, > >> >> within say a class ZooKeeperAdmin, 3) document/test use of ACLs for > >> >> when folks do want to enable reconfig and are also worried about > auth. > >> >> (e.g. turn on kerb) > >> >> > >> >> Again, I don't see any of this as a quality issue personally. As such > >> >> I don't see why any of this (1-3) should hold up a 3.5.2-alpha if we > >> >> were interested in doing such a release. Adjusting the API should be > >> >> done before we move to "beta" though. Although that seems like a > >> >> pretty mechanical (eclipse/idea) type refactoring? > >> >> > >> >> Patrick > >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, > >> >> > Alex > >> >> > On Mar 21, 2016 8:34 PM, "Patrick Hunt" <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > I gotta say that I'm not super excited about this option, but > for > >> some > >> >> >> reason I ended up carrying the flag. To recap, I just raised this > >> option > >> >> >> because it seems that there are folks interested in features in > 3.5 > >> like > >> >> >> SSL and not necessarily in reconfiguration. SSL is important and > to > >> take > >> >> >> Kafka as an example, it sucks that we can't have a whole set up > using > >> >> SSL. > >> >> >> For ZK, the real questions are: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1- how fast can we make 3.5 stable? > >> >> >> > 2- would it be faster if we have a way of disabling > >> reconfiguration? > >> >> >> > 3- would enough users care about a stable 3.5 that has > >> reconfiguration > >> >> >> disabled? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > It is taking a long time to get 3.5 to beta. There has been some > >> good > >> >> >> activity around 3.5.2 release, which is a great step, but it is > >> unclear > >> >> >> when 3.5.3 is going to come and if we will be able to make 3.5 > beta > >> >> then. > >> >> >> Frankly, disabling reconfiguration sounds undesirable because it > is > >> an > >> >> >> important feature, but I currently don't use it in production, so > >> from a > >> >> >> practical point of view, I can go both ways. Whether we go through > >> the > >> >> >> trouble of doing 2 depends on users interested in that option and > >> folks > >> >> >> willing to implement it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > To answer your question, Powell, my pseudo-proposal is kind of a > >> funny > >> >> >> option because once the feature is stable, then we wouldn't need a > >> >> switch > >> >> >> any longer, so there is not need of a deprecation path, we just > start > >> >> >> ignoring it from the first beta release. Until it is beta, I'd say > >> that > >> >> >> default is disabled. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I would argue that we need this even when it does become stable. > To > >> me > >> >> >> this is not a quality issue so much as it is an auth issue. We > want > >> to > >> >> >> make it simple for folks to run a vanilla/old ZK cluster and not > >> worry > >> >> >> about the security implications of having reconfig enabled. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Patrick > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -Flavio > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 17 Mar 2016, at 17:44, powell molleti > >> <powell...@yahoo.com.INVALID > >> >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi Flavio, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Generally do config options and command line args come under > the > >> same > >> >> >> SLA as API?. I was assuming as such hence my question. Perhaps if > the > >> >> >> expectation is that this config option is temporary from get go > then > >> >> may be > >> >> >> it is ok. The default for re-config support will be enabled or > >> >> disabled?. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I am just thinking from provisioning point of view when people > >> >> generate > >> >> >> config options etc. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks > >> >> >> >> Powell. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:12 AM, Flavio Junqueira < > >> >> f...@apache.org> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Hi Powell, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I was thinking config file and system property server side. > What's > >> >> your > >> >> >> concern with compatibility? The API itself wouldn't change, but > the > >> >> config > >> >> >> option wouldn't exist in previous versions and would not exist > >> either in > >> >> >> later stable versions of 3.5. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -Flavio > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 22:08, powell molleti > >> >> <powell...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Will this option be supplied via config file/args/API?. Will > this > >> >> >> option be a temporary thing i.e what about its compatibility?. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> thanks > >> >> >> >>> Powell. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:46 PM, Flavio Junqueira < > >> >> f...@apache.org> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> The main issue to sort out is stability of the API. There is a > >> >> >> security concern around the fact that clients can freely > reconfigure > >> the > >> >> >> ensemble. If we follow the plan that Pat proposed some time ago: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCANLc_9KG6-Dhm=wwfuwzniogk70pg+ihmhpigyfjdslf9-e...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >> >> >> < > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCANLc_9KG6-Dhm=wwfuwzniogk70pg+ihmhpigyfjdslf9-e...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Locking the API is the main step to move it to beta. Sorting > out > >> >> bugs > >> >> >> is definitely necessary, but it isn't the main thing that is > keeping > >> >> 3.5 in > >> >> >> alpha. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> About making it experimental, I was raising the option of > having > >> a > >> >> >> switch that disables the API calls, not the code. The reason why > that > >> >> could > >> >> >> work is that anyone using 3.5 who uses the "experimental" API must > >> >> explicit > >> >> >> turn on the switch and enable the calls. If they do it, they need > to > >> be > >> >> >> aware that the API can change. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> I must say that I haven't really looked closely into doing it, > >> and > >> >> I'm > >> >> >> not even entirely convinced that this is a good idea, but since > Jason > >> >> >> raised the point, I'm exploring options. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> -Flavio > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 20:59, Alexander Shraer < > shra...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Looking at the list of ~50 blocker and critical bugs in > >> ZooKeeper, > >> >> >> only 3-4 > >> >> >> >>>> are related to reconfig. Given this, and the fact that it is > >> run in > >> >> >> >>>> production since 2012 in multiple companies, I don't think > its > >> more > >> >> >> >>>> unstable than any other part of ZooKeeper. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> There are multiple reconfig-related bugs that turned out > really > >> >> >> difficult > >> >> >> >>>> to debug without access to the actual system or at least to > the > >> >> Hudson > >> >> >> >>>> machines where some tests are failing. In the past, Michi > and I > >> >> >> physically > >> >> >> >>>> went to Hortonworks to debug one such issue, but this is of > >> course > >> >> >> not a > >> >> >> >>>> good method, and we weren't able to arrange such a visit > again. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Regarding making it optional - the reconfig logic has several > >> >> >> different > >> >> >> >>>> parts, some would be really difficult to disable using a > >> >> configuration > >> >> >> >>>> parameter. But the actual dynamic expansion of the cluster is > >> >> >> triggered by > >> >> >> >>>> the reconfig command, so it should not affect users who don't > >> >> invoke > >> >> >> it. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Flavio P JUNQUEIRA < > >> >> f...@apache.org> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> I suppose we could give it a try. How do other folks feel > about > >> >> it? > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> -Flavio > >> >> >> >>>>> On 16 Mar 2016 19:52, "Jason Rosenberg" <j...@squareup.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> So, you could enable the dynamic reconfiguration feature > >> behind a > >> >> >> config > >> >> >> >>>>>> option, and document that it should only be enabled > >> >> experimentally, > >> >> >> use > >> >> >> >>>>> at > >> >> >> >>>>>> your own risk. Keep it off by default. Allow only static > >> >> config by > >> >> >> >>>>>> default, until it's stable? > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> Jason > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Flavio Junqueira < > >> >> f...@apache.org> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Hi Jason, > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> The consumer in Kafka is pretty independent from the core > >> >> >> (brokers), > >> >> >> >>>>>>> that's how that project manages to make such a > separation. We > >> >> don't > >> >> >> >>>>> have > >> >> >> >>>>>>> the same with ZooKeeper as the feature we are talking > about > >> is > >> >> >> part of > >> >> >> >>>>>> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>> server and the only way I see of doing what you say is to > >> turn > >> >> off > >> >> >> >>>>>>> features. More specifically, we'd need to disable the > >> reconfig > >> >> API > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >>>>> do > >> >> >> >>>>>>> not allow any change to the configuration, even though the > >> code > >> >> is > >> >> >> >>>>> there. > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> Reconfig here refers to the ability of changing the > >> >> configuration > >> >> >> of an > >> >> >> >>>>>>> ensemble (e.g., changing the set of servers). > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 16 Mar 2016, at 19:14, Jason Rosenberg < > j...@squareup.com > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> So, it would seem sensible to me to have a release where > all > >> >> >> features > >> >> >> >>>>>> are > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> stable, except where noted. E.g. mark certain features > as > >> only > >> >> >> >>>>> 'alpha > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> quality', e.g. the 're-config feature'. (I assume it's > >> >> possible > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>> happily > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> use 3.5.X without exercising the unstable re-config > bits?). > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> There's precedent for doing this sort of thing in other > >> >> projects, > >> >> >> >>>>> e.g. > >> >> >> >>>>>> in > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Kafka, they've had several release where a new "Consumer > >> API" > >> >> is > >> >> >> >>>>>> shipped > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> that is available for beta-testing, but you can still > just > >> use > >> >> the > >> >> >> >>>>>> older > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> stable consumer api, etc. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Jason > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, powell molleti > >> >> >> >>>>>>> <powell...@yahoo.com.invalid > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Doug, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Is 3.5 being an alpha release preventing you from using > >> it?. > >> >> Or > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >>>>>> you > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> run into issues with it?. In general perhaps ZK 3.5 > being > >> >> >> labeled as > >> >> >> >>>>>>> alpha > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> might not be fair, since it is far more stable then what > >> most > >> >> >> people > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> associate an alpha release to be. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps if you do not use re-config feature may be it > will > >> >> just > >> >> >> work > >> >> >> >>>>>> for > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> you?. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> There are many examples of 3.5.X being used in > productions > >> >> from > >> >> >> my > >> >> >> >>>>>>> limited > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> knowledge. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> ThanksPowell. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:44 AM, Flavio Junqueira < > >> >> >> >>>>>>> f...@apache.org> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> None of us expected the reconfig changes to take this > long > >> to > >> >> >> >>>>>> stabilize. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Until we get there, I don't think we can do anything > else > >> with > >> >> >> 3.5. > >> >> >> >>>>>> The > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> best bet we have is to work harder to bring 3.5 into a > >> stable > >> >> >> rather > >> >> >> >>>>>>> than > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> trying to work around it. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> There are lots of people interested in seeing 3.5 > stable, > >> and > >> >> if > >> >> >> we > >> >> >> >>>>>> get > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everyone to contribute more patches and code reviews, we > >> >> should > >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >>>>>> able > >> >> >> >>>>>>> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> do it sooner. After all, it is a community based > effort, so > >> >> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>> community > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> shouldn't rely on just 2-3 people doing the work. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> -Flavio > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2016, at 17:28, Chris Nauroth < > >> >> >> cnaur...@hortonworks.com> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Doug, I forgot to respond to your question about 3.4. > >> Since > >> >> >> 3.4 is > >> >> >> >>>>>> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> stable maintenance line, we are very conservative about > >> >> >> >>>>> back-porting > >> >> >> >>>>>> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> it. Our policy is to limit back-ports to critical bug > >> fixes > >> >> and > >> >> >> >>>>> not > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> introduce any new features in the 3.4 line. This is a > >> >> matter of > >> >> >> >>>>>>> managing > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> risk. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Jason, your question about release cadence is a fair > >> one. If > >> >> >> it's > >> >> >> >>>>>> any > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> consolation, we are now taking the approach of trying > to > >> >> limit > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>> scope > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> of anything new introduced in 3.5 too. That would > allow > >> us > >> >> to > >> >> >> >>>>> focus > >> >> >> >>>>>> on > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> stabilization: resolving blocker bugs and freezing > public > >> >> >> APIs. I > >> >> >> >>>>>>> think > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> this will help us accelerate the releases into beta and > >> >> eventual > >> >> >> >>>>> GA. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am new to ZooKeeper release management, so I'd like > to > >> hear > >> >> >> >>>>>> thoughts > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> from more experienced committers and PMC members about > >> your > >> >> >> >>>>> proposal > >> >> >> >>>>>> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> try to cut a stable release for a limited subset of > what > >> is > >> >> in > >> >> >> >>>>>>> branch-3.5 > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> now. My instinct is that it would be challenging to > >> >> cherry-pick > >> >> >> >>>>> out > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> pieces of branch-3.5 piecemeal at this point. This > would > >> >> become > >> >> >> >>>>>>> another > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> release line for an already resource-constrained > volunteer > >> >> >> staff to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> manage. I'd prefer to dedicate those limited > resources to > >> >> >> overall > >> >> >> >>>>>> 3.5 > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> stabilization. Also, a 3.5 release in which certain > >> features > >> >> >> >>>>>>> "vanished" > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> because of not meeting some stability criteria would be > >> >> >> >>>>> undesirable. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/16, 10:12 AM, "Jason Rosenberg" < > j...@squareup.com > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Chris, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you say whether some parts of 3.5.X are more > stable > >> than > >> >> >> >>>>> others > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> (e.g. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> if we don't care about certain new features, is it > >> >> relatively > >> >> >> >>>>>> stable)? > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to cut out a version that only > has > >> the > >> >> >> bits > >> >> >> >>>>> we > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> think > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> are stable (and release that)? > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> From that timeline, and the historic release cadence, > it > >> >> would > >> >> >> >>>>> seem > >> >> >> >>>>>> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> be > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> years away before we get to the stable release? > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Chris Nauroth < > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> cnaur...@hortonworks.com> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Doug, > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your interest in the SSL feature! > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, I think we're still pretty far away > from > >> >> >> >>>>> declaring a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> stable > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> release in the 3.5 line. I don't think we're close > >> enough > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >>>>>>> anyone > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> can > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> offer a reliable ETA. This is an earlier thread that > >> >> >> describes > >> >> >> >>>>> the > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> high-level strategy for release planning in the 3.5 > >> line: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/ADK1 > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The next step is a 3.5.2-alpha release. We're > working > >> on > >> >> >> >>>>>> resolving a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> few > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> more blockers before we produce a release candidate. > >> >> >> Hopefully > >> >> >> >>>>>> that > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> will > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> get done in the next few weeks. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --Chris Nauroth > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/16, 9:39 AM, "Doug" <itsbeh...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know it's only been a few months, but I was > >> wondering if > >> >> >> there > >> >> >> >>>>>>> was a > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ballpark release date for a stable version of 3.5.1. > >> Or is > >> >> >> there > >> >> >> >>>>>> any > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> chance > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the SSL feature would be added to 3.4.8? Just > another > >> >> person > >> >> >> >>>>>> looking > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> to > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that feature in a stable version. Thanks for all you > >> do! > >> >> :) > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context: > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Zookeeper-with-SSL-release-dat > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> e > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -tp7581744p7582136.html > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at > >> >> >> Nabble.com. > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
