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 < jor...@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....@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....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sure thing. >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> >>> Go ahead, if you don’t mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> On August 11, 2015 at 10:50:52 PM, Cameron McKenzie ( >>> mckenzie....@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 < >>> jor...@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....@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 < >>>> jor...@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....@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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
