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 Wed, 12 Aug 2015 04:28:14 GMT
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