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 Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:12:59 GMT
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