Is anyone seeing fairly consistent failure of the TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti:184
test? When I run from inside eclipse in isolation it seems ok, but running a 'mvn test' seems to fail on this test with some consistency. The changes for CURATOR-167 certainly haven't caused this to happen. cheers On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Scott, > I will merge into master. > cheers > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yep, that looks perfect. Is CURATOR-167 done? If so, we can just >> fast-foward merge it into master now. >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Cameron McKenzie < >> mckenzie....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Scott, >> > Done, would you mind checking the origin/CURATOR-167 to make sure that I >> > haven't done anything wrong! I have done a git pull on a different >> machine >> > and it seems to be ok. >> > cheers >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > You just force push your branch. >> > > >> > > If it's your feature branch, and you know you have it in a good state >> > > locally, you can just force push the remote branch into the same >> state. >> > > >> > > You'd never want to do that to master, a release branch, or someone >> > else's >> > > branch. >> > > On Aug 24, 2015 11:15 PM, "Cameron McKenzie" <mckenzie....@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks Mike, >> > > > That was a good description. The CURATOR-167 branch is definitely >> there >> > > as >> > > > it's been a pull request for the last few months. So, I'll await >> your >> > > > thoughts in the morning. Alternatively, I can just merge master >> instead >> > > of >> > > > rebasing it. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Yea, that's the big downside with rebasing, is that remotes don't >> > > exactly >> > > > > keep up with the history. I'm going to try to explain this as best >> > as I >> > > > > can, but usually I point people towards this excellent "Git for >> Ages >> > 4 >> > > > and >> > > > > Up" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4 - he talks >> > about >> > > > > rebases at the very very end, around the 1:30 mark. >> > > > > >> > > > > Essentially, your current version of the branch does not have the >> > > remote >> > > > > version of the as an ancestor. Which is correct, when you did the >> > > rebase, >> > > > > you wrote a new commit lineage. >> > > > > >> > > > > I didn't realize that there was already a CURATOR-167 branch >> pushed >> > to >> > > > the >> > > > > repo when I gave you those steps. I'll have to look at what's >> going >> > on >> > > > with >> > > > > a fresh set of eyes in the morning. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie < >> > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I just tried this and obviously I'm doing something wrong. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > git checkout CURATOR-167 >> > > > > > git pull >> > > > > > git rebase -i origin/master >> > > > > > >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog with one commit with pick >> > > > > > Save and exit >> > > > > > #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me in a detached head >> state >> > > (I >> > > > > > presume this is ok). >> > > > > > Fix up the merge conflict >> > > > > > git rebase --continue >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes >> > > > > > Save and exit >> > > > > > #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds ok, tests run ok. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > git push >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ! [rejected] CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167 >> (non-fast-forward) >> > > > > > error: failed to push some refs to ' >> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git' >> > > > > > hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current >> branch >> > is >> > > > > > behind >> > > > > > hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. >> > > > > > hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. >> > > > > > hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' >> for >> > > > > details. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There have been no changes on the branch since I did the pull >> > before >> > > > the >> > > > > > rebase. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Any ideas? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie < >> > > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks Mike, >> > > > > > > Will give it a spin today some time. >> > > > > > > cheers >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob < >> mad...@cloudera.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do >> > (assuming >> > > > > > command >> > > > > > >> line) >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you are >> > > > changing >> > > > > > >> git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of >> the >> > > given >> > > > > > >> branch >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie < >> > > > > > mckenzie....@gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > Scott, >> > > > > > >> > I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's >> what >> > > I'm >> > > > > > used >> > > > > > >> to, >> > > > > > >> > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and >> fix >> > up >> > > > > > >> CURATOR-167 >> > > > > > >> > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting >> there a >> > > > > while). >> > > > > > >> So, I >> > > > > > >> > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch? >> > > > > > >> > cheers >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum < >> > > > dragonsi...@apache.org >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > LOL! So sorry to hear that. Yeah, it's definitely >> possible >> > > to >> > > > > mess >> > > > > > >> > > things up badly. If I'm doing something particularly >> risky, >> > > > I'll >> > > > > > just >> > > > > > >> > "git >> > > > > > >> > > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a branch >> > > pointer >> > > > > at >> > > > > > my >> > > > > > >> > > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south. I also >> use >> > > > gitk >> > > > > to >> > > > > > >> > > visualize sometimes. >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's >> > > > *really* >> > > > > > >> hard to >> > > > > > >> > > merge the wrong branch. If the list of commits that >> comes >> > up >> > > > > > doesn't >> > > > > > >> > look >> > > > > > >> > > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- >> trying >> > > to >> > > > > > rebase >> > > > > > >> > onto >> > > > > > >> > > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of >> > which >> > > > > aren't >> > > > > > >> > yours. >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely >> the >> > > > right >> > > > > > >> > approach >> > > > > > >> > > if you're doing a merge strategy! I've just ended up >> > > > gravitating >> > > > > > to a >> > > > > > >> > > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've >> > mentioned. >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > > > > > >> > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several >> > > > projects >> > > > > > >> with >> > > > > > >> > it >> > > > > > >> > >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a >> > > sweat. >> > > > > > "git >> > > > > > >> > rebase >> > > > > > >> > >> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing >> - >> > let >> > > > me >> > > > > > >> know if >> > > > > > >> > >> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I >> never >> > > > merge >> > > > > > >> > master. I >> > > > > > >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In >> fact, >> > > > should >> > > > > we >> > > > > > >> > have a >> > > > > > >> > >> branch naming scheme to enforce this? >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> -Jordan >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum ( >> > > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org) >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I >> > just >> > > > > mean >> > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > >> > >> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or >> master) >> > > vs. a >> > > > > > >> feature >> > > > > > >> > >> branch where you're actively working. >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think >> > "Hey, >> > > > > there >> > > > > > >> are >> > > > > > >> > >> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I >> > really >> > > > need >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > >> > pull >> > > > > > >> > >> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if >> you >> > > > have >> > > > > an >> > > > > > >> svn >> > > > > > >> > >> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch >> into >> > > > your >> > > > > > >> feature >> > > > > > >> > >> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the >> > > history >> > > > > > very >> > > > > > >> > muddy >> > > > > > >> > >> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like >> this: >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally >> > > branched >> > > > > off >> > > > > > >> 3.0, >> > > > > > >> > >> and I want to pull in new changes. >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> git remote update >> > > > > > >> > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0 >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of >> commits >> > to >> > > > > > rebase. >> > > > > > >> I >> > > > > > >> > >> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point >> to >> > > > accept >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > >> > >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like >> > > > reorder >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > >> > list, >> > > > > > >> > >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" >> into >> > a >> > > > more >> > > > > > >> > curated >> > > > > > >> > >> set of logical commits. >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies >> each >> > > > > commit, >> > > > > > >> one >> > > > > > >> > at >> > > > > > >> > >> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like >> picking >> > > up >> > > > > your >> > > > > > >> > commit >> > > > > > >> > >> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, >> as if >> > > all >> > > > > > your >> > > > > > >> > work >> > > > > > >> > >> had been done against what's now the head of that >> branch. >> > > > You'll >> > > > > > may >> > > > > > >> > have >> > > > > > >> > >> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much >> more >> > > than >> > > > if >> > > > > > you >> > > > > > >> > did >> > > > > > >> > >> it as a merge. >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get >> a >> > > feel >> > > > > for >> > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > >> > >> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around >> at >> > > > first, >> > > > > > but >> > > > > > >> > the >> > > > > > >> > >> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit >> > > > histories, >> > > > > > >> which >> > > > > > >> > >> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they >> crop >> > > up. >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > > > > > >> > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some >> > > features >> > > > > that >> > > > > > >> are >> > > > > > >> > >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of >> > > master. >> > > > > The >> > > > > > >> true >> > > > > > >> > >> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right? >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > -Jordan >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum ( >> > > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org >> > > > > > >> > ) >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits >> > > > > > >> > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8 >> > > > > > >> > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 >> is >> > > > > getting >> > > > > > >> > merged >> > > > > > >> > >> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been >> on >> > we >> > > > > don't >> > > > > > >> tend >> > > > > > >> > >> to >> > > > > > >> > >> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't >> just >> > > > > > >> aesthetic, >> > > > > > >> > it >> > > > > > >> > >> > can >> > > > > > >> > >> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). >> If I >> > > > want >> > > > > to >> > > > > > >> pull >> > > > > > >> > >> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I >> > > would >> > > > > > >> typically >> > > > > > >> > >> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch. >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum < >> > > > > > >> dragonsi...@apache.org> >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in >> 3.0. >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > > > > > >> > >> > > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is >> still >> > > > open >> > > > > in >> > > > > > >> > Jira. >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron >> McKenzie ( >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> mckenzie....@gmail.com) wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time. >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new >> > > > > CURATOR-3.0? >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
