curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:34:01 GMT
Is there an easy way to get a list of branches that have not been merged
into the 3.0 branch? That would help make sure that we don't miss anything.

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Scott,
> I'll merge in CURATOR-217 when you're done then get started on CURATOR-214.
> cheers
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll push those branches later today!
> > On Aug 15, 2015 7:48 AM, "Cameron McKenzie" <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Scott,
> > > I've had a look at the CURATOR-3.0 branch and I think that it looks ok.
> > We
> > > still need to merge CURATOR-217 into it (CURATOR-217 already has
> > > CURATOR-161 merged into it as it relies on the new watcher removal
> APIs),
> > > but I don't think that should be too problematic.
> > >
> > > So, I'm happy for you to push the changes. Thanks for sorting this out,
> > > this level of git black magic is beyond me.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Git uses a lot of heuristics, particularly when recomputing and
> > > reapplying
> > > > merges.  In this case, there were a lot of cross merges between trunk
> > and
> > > > 3.0, cross merges between the two feature branches, and I think some
> > > > incomplete merges.  Basically, it just got into a really complicated
> > > state.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that committing to 2.x and merging to 3.x is the way to go
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > > previous experience with managing dual versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott, I'll have a look at your 3.0 branch tonight. Again, excuse
> my
> > > > > ignorance of the darker bits of git, but do we know how the 3.0
> > > branches
> > > > > ended up in this state? I would have thought that if they were
> > branched
> > > > off
> > > > > master at some point, then we should be able to do a merge from
> > master
> > > > into
> > > > > the 3.0 branches and not have to do any cherry picking or other
> such
> > > > > shenanigans.
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think dual commits tend to be problematic.  I'd suggest
> anything
> > > for
> > > > > 2.x
> > > > > > goes into master and then we immediately merge master into 3.0.
> > > > Anything
> > > > > > for 3.0 stays in 3.0 only.  (There will soon be a discussion to
> be
> > > had
> > > > > > about whether master should become 3.0 in the near future.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More immediately, has anyone had a chance to look at my proposed
> > > > history
> > > > > > redo?  I feel like this is starting to stall out.  Can I set a 24
> > > > period
> > > > > > starting now for people to object, and if I don't hear anything,
> > I'm
> > > > > going
> > > > > > to go ahead and push the updates.  I will leave "old" branch
> > markers
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > old stuff to avoid being destructive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once we have a stable 3.0 branch, should we dual-commit
> > everything
> > > to
> > > > > > > master and 3.x? The ZK3.5 "alpha" labelling can scare off some
> > > > > adopters,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I think it is important to maintain 2.x for a little while
> > longer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can volunteer to do the next 2.x release once the tests are
> > > > > stabilized
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > I'll start a new thread on that sometime this weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Scott Blum <
> > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, the 3.0 branch I created should have everything.  But
> let
> > me
> > > > > > > emphasize
> > > > > > > > I haven't pushed this to apache yet!  I wanted you guys to
> > check
> > > it
> > > > > out
> > > > > > > > first, it's only pushed to my mirror.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's.... complicated to describe what I did.  Mostly
> rebasing,
> > > some
> > > > > > > cherry
> > > > > > > > picking, and fixing merge conflicts.  But using gitk to
> > visualize
> > > > > what
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > was doing.  I also had to redo it once or twice when
> something
> > > went
> > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > Sorry I can't really give and exact recount... I worked on
> this
> > > for
> > > > > > > quite a
> > > > > > > > while, like 2 hours maybe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > > > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hey Scott,
> > > > > > > > > Didn't realise that you'd pushed new CURATOR-3.0 branches.
> So
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > CURATOR-3.0 branch has all the CURATOR-3.0 related branches
> > > > merged
> > > > > > in.
> > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > I ask how you fixed the issues, as my git knowledge about
> > weird
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > issues is basically non existent?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When I tried to merge master into CURATOR-160 (which was
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CURATOR-3.0 related branches, and I believe all the others
> > were
> > > > > > > branched
> > > > > > > > > off this), it seems like a few of the fast forward merges
> > > didn't
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > everything, which thankfully was obvious because the build
> > > > failed.
> > > > > > > > > cheers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Scott Blum <
> > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I thought I untangled all that?  Is he still having
> trouble
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > branches I pushed?  You need to do this to see my
> proposed
> > > > > > branches:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > git remote add scottb
> > > > https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator.git
> > > > > > > > > > git remote update
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You should see several new branches on my remote,
> including
> > > > > these:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  * [new branch]      3.0-rejects -> scottb/3.0-rejects
> > > > > > > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-160 -> scottb/CURATOR-160
> > > > > > > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-215 -> scottb/CURATOR-215
> > > > > > > > > >  * [new branch]      CURATOR-3.0 -> scottb/CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please take a look at these new proposed branches!
> > > > > > > > > > For example, you should be able to checkout CURATOR-3.0
> and
> > > > merge
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > mostly cleanly (or checkout master and merge in 3.0
> mostly
> > > > > > cleanly).
> > > > > > > > > > If we're happy with this, I would push these branches to
> > the
> > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > master.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cameron said he had trouble with 160. Any ideas?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ====================
> > > > > > > > > > > Jordan Zimmerman
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Scott Blum <
> > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback on this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Scott Blum <
> > > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Okay, I think I'm done.  I pushed my work up to my own
> > > > github
> > > > > > > > mirror,
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Please note the following branches I pushed:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> CURATOR-160: re-history of the original CURATOR-160
> > branch
> > > > > work,
> > > > > > > > > > >> simplified.
> > > > > > > > > > >> CURATOR-215: re-history of the original CURATOR-215
> > branch
> > > > > work,
> > > > > > > > > > >> simplified.
> > > > > > > > > > >> CURATOR-3.0: a proposed new SHA for the new 3.0
> branch,
> > > > > contains
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> other two branches as well as several "loose" commits
> > > > > > > > > > >> 3.0-rejects: a couple of final commits I didn't put
> into
> > > 3.0
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> should consider; the fasterxml work we probably want,
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > > loose
> > > > > > > > > > println
> > > > > > > > > > >> we probably don't
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Please take a look, and if we think we're in good
> > shape, I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > force-push
> > > > > > > > > > >> these to branches of the same name in the master
> > > repository,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> overwrite where they now live (we can leave
> > > CURATOR-160-old
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> CURATOR-215-old hanging around in the old spots if we
> > > really
> > > > > > > want).
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I did verify the branch compiles, and it's now
> possible
> > to
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> master with minimal conflicts.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Scott Blum <
> > > > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> One more... about commit
> > > > > > > 2c576dc344a167ad4a72d71412c98d76ff4e2d3d,
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > >>> was part of CURATOR-160.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> The history here is a little unclear.  There are
> > several
> > > > new
> > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > >>> (like AsyncReconfigurable.java) that aren't used
> > > anywhere,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > unclear
> > > > > > > > > > >>> on how exactly the two sides of 160 were resolved.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Basically, I got to a complete end state of
> recreating
> > > the
> > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> and this commit is the only one I ended up "missing"
> > > > because
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>> grabbed the wrong "side" of
> > > > > > > > ea1a1684198ca2fa317486a881d5f48466fbf8f8.
> > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > >>> insight appreciated here.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Because it’s a major change and we’re trying to use
> > > > semantic
> > > > > > > > > > versioning
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> it was decided that this change needs to be in
> 3.0.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> -JZ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On August 12, 2015 at 2:29:59 PM, Scott Blum (
> > > > > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Looks like some of the weird issues are around the
> > > revert
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> CURATOR-186, which was "Port Codehaus Jackson to
> > > fasterxml
> > > > > > > > Jackson."
> > > > > > > > > > Looks
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> like it was put on trunk, then reverted on trunk,
> but
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> in 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Some clarification here would be great, let me know
> if
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> be in or out for 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Scott Blum <
> > > > > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> My general strategy is going to be something like
> > this.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> From what I can tell, the main issue is that
> there's
> > a
> > > > > super
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> complicated development history that's now
> impossible
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > with.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> So my goal is to clean up the history in some kind
> of
> > > > > logical
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > for each
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of the logical changes.  I don't know if that means
> > > > > squashing
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on the 3.0 branch down to a single commit, or just
> > > paring
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > history down
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in some way.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Next, I need to find the most recent time master
> was
> > > > merged
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 3.0 branch.  That's actually going to be my
> starting
> > > > point
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> branch, and I'll cherry-pick / rebase changes from
> > the
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > onto
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that.  When I'm done, if I did it right, there
> should
> > > be
> > > > no
> > > > > > > > textual
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> difference between the two branches, but mine
> should
> > > > have a
> > > > > > > sane
> > > > > > > > > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> At that point, it should be easy enough to just
> > rebase
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > > onto
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> master.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I'm sure there will be complications but that's my
> > > basic
> > > > > > plan.
> > > > > > > > > gitk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is my friend for this kind of thing.k
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling branches
> > and
> > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at it, but
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> effort.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Well - probably better than me or Cam. So, please
> > have
> > > > at
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It looks like just CURATOR-215 and CURATOR-160
> but I
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I didn't miss anything.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> There will be more - but start with those. Also,
> if
> > > you
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> what you’re doing so we can learn I’d appreciate
> it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch not on
> > > master?
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> them to get onto master?  If so, when?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 3.0.0 is tied to the ZK 3.5.x branch which is
> still
> > > > alpha.
> > > > > > > > Master
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will stay tied to 3.4.x until 3.5.x is released.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -JZ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On August 12, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM, Scott Blum (
> > > > > > > > > > dragonsinth@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hey guys, I can see indeed the 3.0 branch is
> indeed
> > a
> > > > > giant
> > > > > > > > mess.
> > > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling branches
> > and
> > > > > > history
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at it, but
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> effort.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Two questions though.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 1) Can we put together a conceptual list of what's
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> now?  It looks like just CURATOR-215 and
> CURATOR-160
> > > > but I
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be sure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I didn't miss anything.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch not on
> > > master?
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> them to get onto master?  If so, when?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Scott
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Cameron McKenzie
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Right, I'm a bit stuck. I have renamed the old
> > branch
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> CURATOR-3.0 off master. When I try and merge
> > > > > CURATOR-160, a
> > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> CreateBuilderImpl.java gets merged (I'm not sure
> > why
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> appear
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> on the list of affected files by CURATOR-160),
> and
> > > this
> > > > > > > removes
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> 'debugForceFindProtectedNode' member variable
> which
> > > is
> > > > > used
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> TestFrameworkEdges test case.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Any ideas what's going on here? The version on
> the
> > > > > > > CURATOR-160
> > > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> doesn't have the 'debugForceFindProtectedNode',
> but
> > > it
> > > > > > > appears
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> auto merge when it comes back into the
> CURATOR-3.0
> > > > branch
> > > > > > > > somehow
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> overwrites what's in CURATOR-3.0 instead of
> merging
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Any ideas?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jordan
> Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > Maybe just rename it for now and we can delete
> it
> > > > later
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > On August 11, 2015 at 11:28:14 PM, Cameron
> > > McKenzie (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > So, I will delete the existing CURATOR-3.0
> > branch?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Cameron
> > McKenzie <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> Sure thing.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jordan
> > Zimmerman
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> Go ahead, if you don’t mind.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> On August 11, 2015 at 10:50:52 PM, Cameron
> > > > McKenzie (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> Ok, I can give that a spin if you like, or
> I'm
> > > > happy
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> do it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> and I'll branch from there for CURATOR-214.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Jordan
> > > Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Is it just a matter of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branching off master and merging all of the
> > > > > > CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branches?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Yes, that’s my plan anyway.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> On August 11, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM, Cameron
> > > > McKenzie
> > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> My git knowledge is not deep enough to work
> > out
> > > > > what's
> > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> with the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> CURATOR-3.0 branch, so I'm happy to go from
> > > > scratch.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> matter of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branching off master and merging all of the
> > > > > > CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> branches?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Jordan
> > > Zimmerman
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > We need to come to a decision on the
> > > CURATOR-3.0
> > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> gut
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> instinct
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > is to start from scratch. Any other ideas?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 11, 2015 at 5:28:30 PM, Cameron
> > > > > McKenzie (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Also, which branch should the CURATOR-214
> > fix
> > > > come
> > > > > > > off?
> > > > > > > > > From
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> memory
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > CURATOR-3.0 branch was broken in some
> > > capacity.
> > > > > > > Should I
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> branching
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> off
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > CURATOR-3.0-temp or something else?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Cameron
> > > > McKenzie
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Will do. In the meantime could you please
> > > have a
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggested
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > solution for CURATOR-228 (It's in the
> > JIRA)? I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> work on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > it until we have an agreed solution.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Jordan
> > > > > Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Hi Cameron,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Go ahead and do CURATOR-214 - I assigned
> it
> > to
> > > > > you.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 9, 2015 at 6:47:50 PM, Cameron
> > > > McKenzie
> > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Sounds reasonable, what's left for 3.0.0?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I think that watcher removal is done. So
> > just
> > > > the
> > > > > > host
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> provider (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-213
> > > > > )
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> create
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> APIs (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-214
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I'm happy to pick up the new create APIs
> if
> > no
> > > > one
> > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> looking at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Jordan
> > > > Zimmerman
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > On August 9, 2015 at 5:15:36 PM, Cameron
> > > > McKenzie
> > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > As for Curator 3.0.0, any ideas when ZK
> > 3.5.x
> > > is
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> out of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> Alpha?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > I've seen some grumblings on the ZK
> mailing
> > > > list,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> concrete. I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > guess we just need to be ready for that
> date
> > > > > > whenever
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > cheers
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Cam
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > Who knows :) But, I know people are using
> it
> > > in
> > > > > > > > Production
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > should just treat it as released software.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > -JZ
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message