I haven't really voiced anything about it... but I'll just say, as long
as it doesn't effect normal, non-encrypted comms (which I believe to be
the case), I'm fine with it.
Did anyone ever hear back from legal about the encryption export stuff?
On 10/18/2013 4:11 PM, Michael Berman wrote:
What about ACCUMULO-1009? Discussion seems to have settled down; no one
has told me there's anything wrong with the latest patch. Should 1.6 have
SSL support?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:58 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote:
I chimed in on 802, there are a few items (API and error related) that
should be resolved because if the feature ISN'T completed by release time,
we'll have issues going forward.
210 - I need a better idea of what the remaining 5% is, but if it means
moving packages around, particularly client packages, I would hold off for
the same reason as above.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm wondering if it would be prudent to go ahead and merge in the
ACCUMULO-210 and ACCUMULO-802 work, knowing it's only 95% complete, or
to push it at the last minute as I polish them up.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote:
This is just a friendly reminder to the community that we have a slated
code freeze for November 1. That gives us just two weeks until that
deadline.
