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 Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:24:08 GMT
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