Hi Thomas,

 I specifically did not mention any bug fixes or improvements since it
would make for a much bigger list. I will be running through the list
and comment on those to ask folks if they can get the jira in for the
3.4 release. I want to get a 3.4 release out to be able to have a
feature release.

The last feature release we had is :

3.3.0   Release Date: 25/Mar/10 Improved manageability and simplified
client development process.


So, we desperately need a feature release to add stuff like kerberos,
read only mode, native windows clients and others.


I would be happy to have the ones you listed on 3.4 release. I think
most of them should get in.

Also, if you find any issues on ZOOKEEPER-999 please raise it on the
jira. I'd really like to have rpms for ZK.

thanks
mahadev


On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Thomas Koch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mahadev Konar:
>> Hi all,
>>  Since 3.3.3 release is out the door, I am starting this thread to
>> start discussion for 3.4.0 release.
>>
>> My plan for 3.4 is to include the following features/enhancements to
>> the 3.4 release. The following is the list of features I think would
>> be great in 3.4:
>>
>> 1) ZOOKEEPER-859 (native windows client)
>> 2) ZOOKEEPER-702 (failure detection model)
>> 3) ZOOKEEPER-784 (read only mode for ZK)
>> 4) ZOOKEEPER-938 (kerberos authentication)
>> 5) ZOOKEEPER-999 (rpms for zookeeper)
>> 6) ZOOKEEPER-856 (connection imbalance betweek ZK servers)
>> 7) ZOOKEEPER-1000 (SSL support, this should be easy with ZOOKEEPER-938)
>
> Hi Mahadev,
>
> there are many more issues in jira marked for 3.4.0. Do you plan to postpone
> those? What is the reason to do the 3.4.0 release now without those instead of
> waiting a bit more? Or what is already in 3.4.0 what needs to get out?
>
> Some example issues I care about for 3.4.0:
> ZOOKEEPER-961, ZOOKEEPER-911, ZOOKEEPER-837, ZOOKEEPER-899, ZOOKEEPER-847, and
> others...
>
> On the other hand ZOOKEEPER-999 is very new, not yet reviewed and on a quick
> scan I think the patch has major problems.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro
>

Reply via email to