curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:30:52 GMT
Great work. Thank you. 

====================
Jordan Zimmerman

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is now done, sorry for the delay.  Let me describe the current state
> of the world:
> 
> CURATOR-215-original, CURATOR-160-original, CURATOR-3.0-old,
> CURATOR-3.0-temp - these are the old versions of all the branches, we
> should consider pruning them at some point.
> 
> CURATOR-215, CURATOR-160, CURATOR-3.0 - these are fixed/rebased versions of
> the branches we should stick with.
> 
> *ALL MASTER COMMITS ARE NOW MERGED INTO CURATOR-3.0.*  There is nothing
> that has been committed to master that isn't in 3.0 now.
> 
> Procedures going forward:
> 
> - If you're working on stuff for 2.8 / 2.9, branch from master and
> merge/commit to master.
> 
> - If you're working on stuff for 3.0, branch from CURATOR-3.0 and
> merge/commit to CURATOR-3.0.
> 
> - Periodically, we'll want to get master changes into 3.0.  To do this, *check
> out CURATOR-3.0*, and merge master into that, then push the result after
> fixing conflicts (which should be small / non-existent).  *Don't do it the
> other way, don't check out master and merge 3.0 into it.*
> 
> For discussion: there is a *3.0-rejects* branch.  One of the commits there
> is and added System.out.println that I think we don't want.  The other one
> is the work to migrate to fasterxml Jackson.  I think we actually want this
> commit on 3.0.  Please take a look and let me know, if we want this commit,
> we should cherry-pick it onto 3.0.  I'm happy to do that.
> 
> Everything I did should be reversible, so let me know if I screwed anything
> up!
> 
> --Scott

Mime
View raw message