curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:17:39 GMT
Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some features that are 3.0.0 based so I’m
treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of master. The true “master” is Curator 2.x only, right?

-Jordan



On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsinth@apache.org) wrote:

BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits  
(ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8  
& 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is getting merged  
into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we don't tend to  
do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just aesthetic, it can  
get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I want to pull  
changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I would typically  
*rebase* my feature branch against the main branch.  

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@apache.org> wrote:  

> Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0.  
>  
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <  
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:  
>  
>> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still open in Jira.  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie (  
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:  
>>  
>> Yes, I merged it in last week some time.  
>>  
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <  
>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:  
>>  
>> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0?  
>> >  
>> > -Jordan  
>> >  
>> >  
>> >  
>>  
>  
>  

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message