curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:48:28 GMT
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