Thanks Mike, On master. I'll have a bit of a look into it and let you know. I think that it's a race condition based on how the test is structured. cheers
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Is this on 3.0 or master? Can you create a JIRA with some log output? > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
