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.
Thanks, Adam 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. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> 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 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 >>>> quick >>>> 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 >>>> >>>
