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 01:18:23 GMT
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