XComp commented on PR #430: URL: https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/430#issuecomment-1230339944
> they're logically resolved simultaneously. That is, if you resolve CURATOR-644, you resolve CURATOR-645 - they're the same sort. > > In another word, you can check out the diff and tell me how to split it up into two PRs. I was thinking about it once more. CURATOR-645 could be covered separately in my opinion. CURATOR-645 was identified in FLINK-27078 where we run almost no logic before revoking the leadership by calling `LeaderLatch#close`. That caused the current leader's `LeaderLatch` instance to trigger its child node deletion while other `LeaderLatch` instances were right within setting up the watcher for its child node's predecessor. Hence, I see CURATOR-645 being not that tightly related with the reconnect issue covered in CURATOR-644. CURATOR-645 just needs to be resolved before CURATOR-644 can be resolved. Anyway, the changes are not that big in the end that we couldn't resolve both in the same PR. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
