curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-3.0 tests
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2016 23:48:42 GMT
Ah, must still be recovering, I'm sure I saw it was being applied to the
3.0 branch.

I will merge it into master and 3.0.

Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331? I have asked Scott
what his opinion is since its the TreeCache stuff. It looks ok to me though.
cheers

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> wrote:

> Yes, that’s correct. It’s a patch against master. I’ll do the merge if
> you’re OK with it.
>
> -Jordan
>
> > On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > hey Jordan,
> > The fix for CURATOR-335 looks good to me, but I'm wondering if it should
> > actually be applied against master and then merged into 3.0?
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >
> >> no worries - get well.
> >>
> >>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for sorting this out Jordan. I'm pretty sick today so won't get
> >>> around to looking at it, but I will try over the weekend or really next
> >> week
> >>> On 3 Jun 2016 7:05 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> It sounds like curator is using a different algorithm since it has
> >>>>> nodes sorting their position to determine if they have a lease or
> not.
> >>>>
> >>>> No - I just added that as I thought there was a bug. But, now I
> realize
> >>>> I’m wrong. So, it was correct all along. Thanks Ben.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Jordan
> >>
> >>
>
>

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