curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: Next Steps
Date Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:30 GMT
I’ll bet you need to merge master into each of the branches first. Have you tried that?

-Jordan



On August 12, 2015 at 12:57:28 AM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:

Right, I'm a bit stuck. I have renamed the old branch and created a new CURATOR-3.0 off master.
When I try and merge CURATOR-160, a change to CreateBuilderImpl.java gets merged (I'm not
sure why as it doesn't appear on the list of affected files by CURATOR-160), and this removes
the 'debugForceFindProtectedNode' member variable which is used by the TestFrameworkEdges
test case.

Any ideas what's going on here? The version on the CURATOR-160 branch doesn't have the 'debugForceFindProtectedNode',
but it appears that the auto merge when it comes back into the CURATOR-3.0 branch somehow
overwrites what's in CURATOR-3.0 instead of merging it.

Any ideas?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
Maybe just rename it for now and we can delete it later



On August 11, 2015 at 11:28:14 PM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:

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