I'd like to recommend that we consider a special 3.4 branch for this. (sorry I'm late to the party but I was on vacation till today, just back).
We could create a 3.4+ssl branch, or something like that, and give special permissions for non-committers to commit to the branch. People that are interested in this feature but not committers. Once the folks working on this are satisfied the PMC could do a special "3.4.9+ssl" release artifact (say just a tarball), separate from the 3.4.x line, for folks that are interested to use it. This would require minimal oversight by the committers. I believe other components are doing this, typically for feature development before being merged back in, but it would enable interested parties to get access to ssl prior to 3.5 becoming stable. It would also benefit 3.5 in the sense that anything we learn on that branch would be merged into the trunk - fixes say. Patrick On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Luciano Afranllie <[email protected] > wrote: > Quick question, ZK-2125 depends on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2069 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2072? > > It seems to be given the description of ZK-2063... > > Regards > Luciano > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think you're talking about porting the patch of ZK-2125. I haven't > > really assessed how much work it would be to backport it, but it is > > possibly not hard. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > On 01 Jul 2016, at 15:54, Luciano Afranllie <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Flavio > > > > > > What about back porting in our own private fork while we wait for the > > 3.5? > > > I would like your help understanding how easy/difficult this may be. > > > > > > Regards > > > Luciano > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Luciano, > > >> > > >> The 3.4 branch is stable and we are only releasing bug fixes at this > > >> point, so it is currently not an option to back port. > > >> > > >> We are all pretty eager to see the 3.5 branch stable, and we are in > the > > >> process of voting the release candidate for 3.5.2, but that's still > > tagged > > >> as alpha. We don't have a current plan for 3.5.3 yet, but I believe no > > one > > >> here wants to wait too long have it out. I suspect that it won't be > > before > > >> 3 months from now given the pace that we have been releasing, though. > > >> > > >> -Flavio > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 01 Jul 2016, at 13:07, Luciano Afranllie < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi there > > >>> > > >>> We are in the need to have SSL support in Zookeeper in order for our > > >>> solution to be FIPS complaint. > > >>> > > >>> Of course one option is to wait for 3.5 to be released but given we > > are a > > >>> little bit time constrained we want to consider an alternative of > > >>> backporting SSL support from 3.5 to 3.4 (we are using 3.4.8) > > >>> > > >>> Do you think this is doable? Can you please tell me the impact of > doing > > >>> this and if you think it is a viable alternative? We have experience > > with > > >>> Java but not with ZK at development level. > > >>> > > >>> Of, course if you have a rough estimate about when ZK 3.5 may be > > released > > >>> that may help in our decision too. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> Luciano > > >> > > >> > > > > >
