[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14732521#comment-14732521
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt closed the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14732522#comment-14732522
]
Jordan Zimmerman commented on CURATOR-217:
--
It was definitely merged. Apac
Github user Randgalt closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is en
t; >> > > > > > >> > 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
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > > > > >> >
>>> > >> > > > > > >>
>>> > >> > > > > > >
>>> > >> > > > > > >
>>> > >> > > > > >
>>> > >> > > > >
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
> > > >> > master. I
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In
>> > >> fact,
>> > >> > > > should
>> > >> > > > > we
>> > >> > > > > >
M, 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
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
t; 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
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
ey,
>> > > > > 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
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
; > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
,
> > > > > >> > >> 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
> > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
uld 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
> > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
gt; > >> > >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a
> more
> > > >> > curated
> > > >> > >> set of logical commits.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Once
umping 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
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
ge 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
> >> > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >>
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
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
>> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
t; 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
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
; >> > (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
> >> > 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
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
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
>> > 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
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
t; 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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
s 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
>
> > 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, 20
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jordan Zimmerman resolved CURATOR-217.
--
Resolution: Fixed
> Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Reci
1 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
, 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
ron 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
> >
> >
> >
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709491#comment-14709491
]
Jordan Zimmerman commented on CURATOR-217:
--
I'm trying to figure th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14709486#comment-14709486
]
Mike Drob commented on CURATOR-217:
---
The PR is closed, was this merged in? Can
gt; Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0?
>
> -Jordan
>
>
>
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
>
>
>
Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0?
-Jordan
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551751#comment-14551751
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commente
Github user cammckenzie commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#issuecomment-103745243
LGTM
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551750#comment-14551750
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt commented on
Github user Randgalt commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#issuecomment-103744694
All comments applied, latest CURATOR-161 merged.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551696#comment-14551696
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt commented
Github user Randgalt commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30667688
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/test/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/TestWatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551694#comment-14551694
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt commented
Github user Randgalt commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30667610
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/test/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/TestWatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551530#comment-14551530
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commente
Github user cammckenzie commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#issuecomment-103703152
Other than my minor comments, this looks good to me. Still needs to have
the updates to CURATOR-161 merged into it also as currently one of the
CURATOR-161 related u
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551523#comment-14551523
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commented
Github user cammckenzie commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30661149
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/WatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551507#comment-14551507
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commented
Github user cammckenzie commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30660689
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/test/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/TestWatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+/**
+ * License
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551504#comment-14551504
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commented
Github user cammckenzie commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30660535
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/test/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/TestWatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+/**
+ * License
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551501#comment-14551501
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt commented
Github user Randgalt commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30660440
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/imps/WatcherRemovalManager.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551464#comment-14551464
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user Randgalt commented
Github user Randgalt commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30659178
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/WatcherRemoveCuratorFramework.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551460#comment-14551460
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commented
Github user cammckenzie commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30659120
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/WatcherRemoveCuratorFramework.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551459#comment-14551459
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user cammckenzie commented
Github user cammckenzie commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82#discussion_r30659075
--- Diff:
curator-framework/src/main/java/org/apache/curator/framework/CuratorFramework.java
---
@@ -235,4 +235,6 @@
* @throws InterruptedExcep
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551441#comment-14551441
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
GitHub user Randgalt opened a
GitHub user Randgalt opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/82
[CURATOR-217] Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Recipes
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/apache/curator CURATOR-217
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/81
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enab
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551438#comment-14551438
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user asfgit closed the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551432#comment-14551432
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
Github user asfgit closed the
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/80
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enab
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551431#comment-14551431
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
GitHub user Randgalt opened a
GitHub user Randgalt opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/81
CURATOR-217 Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Recipes
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/apache/curator CURATOR-217
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14551424#comment-14551424
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-217:
GitHub user Randgalt opened a
GitHub user Randgalt opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/80
[CURATOR-217] Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Recipes
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/apache/curator CURATOR-217
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jordan Zimmerman reassigned CURATOR-217:
Assignee: Jordan Zimmerman
> Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Reci
Jordan Zimmerman created CURATOR-217:
Summary: Use new Watcher Removal APIs in Curator Recipes
Key: CURATOR-217
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-217
Project: Apache Curator
66 matches
Mail list logo
