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 Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:33:57 GMT
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