Once we have a stable 3.0 branch, should we dual-commit everything to master and 3.x? The ZK3.5 "alpha" labelling can scare off some adopters, so I think it is important to maintain 2.x for a little while longer.
I can volunteer to do the next 2.x release once the tests are stabilized - I'll start a new thread on that sometime this weekend. On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, the 3.0 branch I created should have everything. But let me emphasize > I haven't pushed this to apache yet! I wanted you guys to check it out > first, it's only pushed to my mirror. > > It's.... complicated to describe what I did. Mostly rebasing, some cherry > picking, and fixing merge conflicts. But using gitk to visualize what I > was doing. I also had to redo it once or twice when something went wrong. > Sorry I can't really give and exact recount... I worked on this for quite a > while, like 2 hours maybe. > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > 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 > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
