curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:29:01 GMT
I think it's all good. I've fixed up the couple of build issues on the
217-merged branch. Just running the unit tests. If everything's ok then
I'll merge it back into CURATOR-3.0 and then I think we're back in a stable
state, and I can start on CURATOR-214.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think just confirm that ZooDefs.CONFIG_NODE is the correct watcher path
> for getConfig()?
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry - it’s hard to follow this thread. What do I need to do?
>>
>> -Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>> On August 17, 2015 at 6:18:21 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