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 02:15:57 GMT
Cool, I pushed you a branch named '217-merged' you can try out.  It needs a
fix to RemoveWatchesBuilderImpl that I'm sure you know what to do.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Scoot, I will give that a spin.
> cheers
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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