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 05:46:53 GMT
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