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....@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....@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 <jor...@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....@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 <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: On August 9, 2015 at 5:15:36 PM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie....@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
