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 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:09:45 GMT
I see.  Okay, I think I may have an answer for you.  Try:

watching.getWatcher(client, ZooDefs.CONFIG_NODE)


On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok, there were a bunch of other conflicts as well which were easy to
> resolve.
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > K, lemme take a look.  Both of those branches, CURATOR-161 and
> CURATOR-217,
> > were branched from the old 3.0 branch.  I'd like to check if rebasing
> them
> > makes the problem disappear.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, typo, yes, I was trying to merge into CURATOR-3.0.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > One quick thing... both of those JIRAs are marked for 3.0.  Are you
> > sure
> > > > you want to merge that branch into master?  I think you want to merge
> > it
> > > > into CURATOR-3.0.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think it's just because the GetConfigBuilderImpl wasn't present
> in
> > > the
> > > > > CURATOR-217 branch, so it didn't get updated along with the other
> > > changes
> > > > > that Jordan made when the interface into the Watching class
> changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Scott Blum <
> dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Let me take a look... it's possible your branch needed to be
> > rebased
> > > > > prior
> > > > > > to merging.
> > > > > > Gimme 30 minutes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Scott,
> > > > > > > I've just merged CURATOR-217 into master and have one small
> > issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jordan, with the changes you made with to the Watching.java
> > class,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > getWatcher() call now takes a CuratorFramework reference
and a
> > path
> > > > > > > reference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The GetConfigBuilderImpl breaks when merging because it's
using
> > the
> > > > old
> > > > > > > getWatcher() call that doesn't exist any more. This isn't
an
> > issue
> > > to
> > > > > > fix,
> > > > > > > but I'm just wondering what path reference should be used
for
> the
> > > > > > > configuration case, as it's a different sort of watch.
It's
> just
> > > > passed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the getConfig() call on the ZooKeeper class. It seems that
I
> > can't
> > > > just
> > > > > > > pass in a null path as this gets validated. Suggestions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > > > > > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message