Cameron said he had trouble with 160. Any ideas? ==================== Jordan Zimmerman
> On Aug 13, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> > >
