Great work. Thank you. ==================== Jordan Zimmerman
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:10 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is now done, sorry for the delay. Let me describe the current state > of the world: > > CURATOR-215-original, CURATOR-160-original, CURATOR-3.0-old, > CURATOR-3.0-temp - these are the old versions of all the branches, we > should consider pruning them at some point. > > CURATOR-215, CURATOR-160, CURATOR-3.0 - these are fixed/rebased versions of > the branches we should stick with. > > *ALL MASTER COMMITS ARE NOW MERGED INTO CURATOR-3.0.* There is nothing > that has been committed to master that isn't in 3.0 now. > > Procedures going forward: > > - If you're working on stuff for 2.8 / 2.9, branch from master and > merge/commit to master. > > - If you're working on stuff for 3.0, branch from CURATOR-3.0 and > merge/commit to CURATOR-3.0. > > - Periodically, we'll want to get master changes into 3.0. To do this, *check > out CURATOR-3.0*, and merge master into that, then push the result after > fixing conflicts (which should be small / non-existent). *Don't do it the > other way, don't check out master and merge 3.0 into it.* > > For discussion: there is a *3.0-rejects* branch. One of the commits there > is and added System.out.println that I think we don't want. The other one > is the work to migrate to fasterxml Jackson. I think we actually want this > commit on 3.0. Please take a look and let me know, if we want this commit, > we should cherry-pick it onto 3.0. I'm happy to do that. > > Everything I did should be reversible, so let me know if I screwed anything > up! > > --Scott
