Ah, must still be recovering, I'm sure I saw it was being applied to the 3.0 branch.
I will merge it into master and 3.0. Is it worth holding up the build to merge CURATOR-331? I have asked Scott what his opinion is since its the TreeCache stuff. It looks ok to me though. cheers On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] > wrote: > Yes, that’s correct. It’s a patch against master. I’ll do the merge if > you’re OK with it. > > -Jordan > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > hey Jordan, > > The fix for CURATOR-335 looks good to me, but I'm wondering if it should > > actually be applied against master and then merged into 3.0? > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> no worries - get well. > >> > >>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for sorting this out Jordan. I'm pretty sick today so won't get > >>> around to looking at it, but I will try over the weekend or really next > >> week > >>> On 3 Jun 2016 7:05 AM, "Jordan Zimmerman" <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> It sounds like curator is using a different algorithm since it has > >>>>> nodes sorting their position to determine if they have a lease or > not. > >>>> > >>>> No - I just added that as I thought there was a bug. But, now I > realize > >>>> I’m wrong. So, it was correct all along. Thanks Ben. > >>>> > >>>> -Jordan > >> > >> > >
