Any feedback on this? On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I think I'm done. I pushed my work up to my own github mirror, > https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator > > Please note the following branches I pushed: > > CURATOR-160: re-history of the original CURATOR-160 branch work, > simplified. > CURATOR-215: re-history of the original CURATOR-215 branch work, > simplified. > CURATOR-3.0: a proposed new SHA for the new 3.0 branch, contains the other > two branches as well as several "loose" commits > 3.0-rejects: a couple of final commits I didn't put into 3.0 but we should > consider; the fasterxml work we probably want, and a loose println we > probably don't > > Please take a look, and if we think we're in good shape, I can force-push > these to branches of the same name in the master repository, which will > overwrite where they now live (we can leave CURATOR-160-old and > CURATOR-215-old hanging around in the old spots if we really want). > > I did verify the branch compiles, and it's now possible to merge with > master with minimal conflicts. > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> One more... about commit 2c576dc344a167ad4a72d71412c98d76ff4e2d3d, which >> was part of CURATOR-160. >> >> The history here is a little unclear. There are several new files added >> (like AsyncReconfigurable.java) that aren't used anywhere, and I'm unclear >> on how exactly the two sides of 160 were resolved. >> >> Basically, I got to a complete end state of recreating the 3.0 branch, >> and this commit is the only one I ended up "missing" because I think I >> grabbed the wrong "side" of ea1a1684198ca2fa317486a881d5f48466fbf8f8. Any >> insight appreciated here. >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> >>> Because it’s a major change and we’re trying to use semantic versioning >>> it was decided that this change needs to be in 3.0.0. >>> >>> -JZ >>> >>> >>> >>> On August 12, 2015 at 2:29:59 PM, Scott Blum (dragonsi...@gmail.com) >>> wrote: >>> >>> Looks like some of the weird issues are around the revert of >>> CURATOR-186, which was "Port Codehaus Jackson to fasterxml Jackson." Looks >>> like it was put on trunk, then reverted on trunk, but it is supposed to be >>> in 3.0? >>> >>> Some clarification here would be great, let me know if it's supposed to >>> be in or out for 3.0. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My general strategy is going to be something like this. >>>> >>>> From what I can tell, the main issue is that there's a super >>>> complicated development history that's now impossible to do anything with. >>>> So my goal is to clean up the history in some kind of logical way for each >>>> of the logical changes. I don't know if that means squashing each change >>>> on the 3.0 branch down to a single commit, or just paring the history down >>>> in some way. >>>> >>>> Next, I need to find the most recent time master was merged into the >>>> 3.0 branch. That's actually going to be my starting point for a new 3.0 >>>> branch, and I'll cherry-pick / rebase changes from the 3.0 branch onto >>>> that. When I'm done, if I did it right, there should be no textual >>>> difference between the two branches, but mine should have a sane history. >>>> At that point, it should be easy enough to just rebase 3.0 onto the current >>>> master. >>>> >>>> I'm sure there will be complications but that's my basic plan. gitk is >>>> my friend for this kind of thing.k >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling branches and history >>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at it, but I don't want to >>>>> duplicate >>>>> effort. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well - probably better than me or Cam. So, please have at it. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like just CURATOR-215 and CURATOR-160 but I want to be sure I >>>>> didn't miss anything. >>>>> >>>>> There will be more - but start with those. Also, if you could explain >>>>> what you’re doing so we can learn I’d appreciate it. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch not on master? Do we want >>>>> them to get onto master? If so, when? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.0.0 is tied to the ZK 3.5.x branch which is still alpha. Master will >>>>> stay tied to 3.4.x until 3.5.x is released. >>>>> >>>>> -JZ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On August 12, 2015 at 11:33:12 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsi...@gmail.com) >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey guys, I can see indeed the 3.0 branch is indeed a giant mess. :) >>>>> >>>>> I'm pretty good with git, and untangling branches and history >>>>> problems, and I'm happy to take a stab at it, but I don't want to >>>>> duplicate >>>>> effort. >>>>> >>>>> Two questions though. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Can we put together a conceptual list of what's in the 3.0 branch >>>>> now? It looks like just CURATOR-215 and CURATOR-160 but I want to be sure >>>>> I didn't miss anything. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Why are the changes in the 3.0 branch not on master? Do we want >>>>> them to get onto master? If so, when? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Cameron McKenzie < >>>>> mckenzie....@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 < >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
