Is there an easy way to get a list of branches that have not been merged into the 3.0 branch? That would help make sure that we don't miss anything.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Scott, > I'll merge in CURATOR-217 when you're done then get started on CURATOR-214. > cheers > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok, I'll push those branches later today! > > On Aug 15, 2015 7:48 AM, "Cameron McKenzie" <mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Scott, > > > I've had a look at the CURATOR-3.0 branch and I think that it looks ok. > > We > > > still need to merge CURATOR-217 into it (CURATOR-217 already has > > > CURATOR-161 merged into it as it relies on the new watcher removal > APIs), > > > but I don't think that should be too problematic. > > > > > > So, I'm happy for you to push the changes. Thanks for sorting this out, > > > this level of git black magic is beyond me. > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Git uses a lot of heuristics, particularly when recomputing and > > > reapplying > > > > merges. In this case, there were a lot of cross merges between trunk > > and > > > > 3.0, cross merges between the two feature branches, and I think some > > > > incomplete merges. Basically, it just got into a really complicated > > > state. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that committing to 2.x and merging to 3.x is the way to go > > > based > > > > on > > > > > previous experience with managing dual versions. > > > > > > > > > > Scott, I'll have a look at your 3.0 branch tonight. Again, excuse > my > > > > > ignorance of the darker bits of git, but do we know how the 3.0 > > > branches > > > > > ended up in this state? I would have thought that if they were > > branched > > > > off > > > > > master at some point, then we should be able to do a merge from > > master > > > > into > > > > > the 3.0 branches and not have to do any cherry picking or other > such > > > > > shenanigans. > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think dual commits tend to be problematic. I'd suggest > anything > > > for > > > > > 2.x > > > > > > goes into master and then we immediately merge master into 3.0. > > > > Anything > > > > > > for 3.0 stays in 3.0 only. (There will soon be a discussion to > be > > > had > > > > > > about whether master should become 3.0 in the near future.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More immediately, has anyone had a chance to look at my proposed > > > > history > > > > > > redo? I feel like this is starting to stall out. Can I set a 24 > > > > period > > > > > > starting now for people to object, and if I don't hear anything, > > I'm > > > > > going > > > > > > to go ahead and push the updates. I will leave "old" branch > > markers > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > old stuff to avoid being destructive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
