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, 19 Aug 2015 21:47:01 GMT
Nope, all sorted.
Thanks.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:

> Resending - is there something I need to do on watchers?
>
> -Jordan
>
>
>
> On August 17, 2015 at 10:19:48 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