K, lemme take a look. Both of those branches, CURATOR-161 and CURATOR-217, were branched from the old 3.0 branch. I'd like to check if rebasing them makes the problem disappear.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, typo, yes, I was trying to merge into CURATOR-3.0. > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > One quick thing... both of those JIRAs are marked for 3.0. Are you sure > > you want to merge that branch into master? I think you want to merge it > > into CURATOR-3.0. > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I think it's just because the GetConfigBuilderImpl wasn't present in > the > > > CURATOR-217 branch, so it didn't get updated along with the other > changes > > > that Jordan made when the interface into the Watching class changed. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Let me take a look... it's possible your branch needed to be rebased > > > prior > > > > to merging. > > > > Gimme 30 minutes. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Scott, > > > > > I've just merged CURATOR-217 into master and have one small issue. > > > > > > > > > > Jordan, with the changes you made with to the Watching.java class, > > the > > > > > getWatcher() call now takes a CuratorFramework reference and a path > > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > > > The GetConfigBuilderImpl breaks when merging because it's using the > > old > > > > > getWatcher() call that doesn't exist any more. This isn't an issue > to > > > > fix, > > > > > but I'm just wondering what path reference should be used for the > > > > > configuration case, as it's a different sort of watch. It's just > > passed > > > > to > > > > > the getConfig() call on the ZooKeeper class. It seems that I can't > > just > > > > > pass in a null path as this gets validated. Suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > > > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
