John Vines 2013-01-21, 18:41
Keith Turner 2013-01-21, 18:58
Josh Elser 2013-01-21, 20:01
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 that
>>> I'm still getting together ACCUMULO-259, which I'm close to
>>> completing. But
>>> I would really like to see the pluggable encryption hooks in place
>>> for 1.5
>>> so insertable encryption is available with Accumulo 1.5. For the
>>> 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
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-21, 21:26
Christopher 2013-01-22, 03:32
Adam Fuchs 2013-01-22, 03:40
Christopher Tubbs 2013-01-21, 20:14