hey Scott, Didn't realise that you'd pushed new CURATOR-3.0 branches. So your CURATOR-3.0 branch has all the CURATOR-3.0 related branches merged in. Can I ask how you fixed the issues, as my git knowledge about weird merge issues is basically non existent?
When I tried to merge master into CURATOR-160 (which was the first of the CURATOR-3.0 related branches, and I believe all the others were branched off this), it seems like a few of the fast forward merges didn't merge everything, which thankfully was obvious because the build failed. cheers On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought I untangled all that? Is he still having trouble with the new > branches I pushed? You need to do this to see my proposed branches: > > git remote add scottb https://github.com/dragonsinth/curator.git > git remote update > > You should see several new branches on my remote, including these: > > * [new branch] 3.0-rejects -> scottb/3.0-rejects > * [new branch] CURATOR-160 -> scottb/CURATOR-160 > * [new branch] CURATOR-215 -> scottb/CURATOR-215 > * [new branch] CURATOR-3.0 -> scottb/CURATOR-3.0 > > Please take a look at these new proposed branches! > For example, you should be able to checkout CURATOR-3.0 and merge in master > mostly cleanly (or checkout master and merge in 3.0 mostly cleanly). > If we're happy with this, I would push these branches to the apache master. > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
