John Vines 2013-01-21, 18:41
Keith Turner 2013-01-21, 18:58
Josh Elser 2013-01-21, 20:01
Josh Elser 2013-01-21, 20:37
Also a big +1 for Friday.
By the way, as much as I would like to we can't blame this one on John.
He's largely asking on my behalf, since I keep asking him and other folks
to sneak in more security features.
On Jan 21, 2013 3:37 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose I do want to add: it would be good to ask these sort of question
> *before* said freeze was happening, John. It isn't any skin off my back,
> but could be frustrating to others if they made extra effort to finish a
> fix by the original freeze date.
> On 01/21/2013 03:01 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>> Ditto, Keith.
>> On 01/21/2013 01:58 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>> Next Friday is ok w/ me. We should try to stick to that. If its too
>>> much to be done before then, then its probably something for 1.6.
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, John Vines<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I would like to propose extending the code freeze for a few days, to at
>>>> least Wednesday, but I think Friday would be best. My own reasons are
>>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to completing.
>>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place for
>>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the record,
>>>> Adam is working on 980 and 981 to get it in for the RFile, and I have a
>>>> security expert working on a patch for the walogs, so they are being
>>>> actively worked on.
>>>> And it also appears that I'm not the only person in this boat, as a
>>>> search shows 102 open fix tickets for 1.5, so perhaps another round of
>>>> prioritization is necessary before we close things up.
>>>> How does this sound?
>>>> - John
Christopher 2013-01-22, 03:32
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-22, 03:40
Christopher Tubbs 2013-01-21, 20:14