I don't think there's any major concerns about 1009 remaining. Might be a few minor polishing details that can be ironed out... if that.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > I have yet to hear any objections from the rest of the devs and I have no > issues with it as well. Unless anyone speaks up, I'll probably commit it > early next week. > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Michael Berman <[email protected]> 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. >>> > >>> >> >>
