Why not rebase o top of his changes? Everyone get changes in without shenanigans
On Friday, September 23, 2016, Paul Sigurdson <[email protected]> wrote: > I verified that our changes to BusAttachment.java don’t intersect. An > auto-merge should be successful i would assume. > However, in BusAttachmentTest.java our changes have intersection… as we > are both adding new tests to the end of the file and adding import > statements at the top. > I propose that I drop BusAttachmentTest.jar from my commits that have this > file, and then add this file back in later to my most recent commit (after > Sec2.0 is merged to master). > > Thoughts? > > > On Sep 23, 2016, at 1:42 PM, Paul Sigurdson <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > That is 3217. Kristian has reviewed patch-set 7, 8, and 10 of that commit > and had given +1 on patch-set 8 and 10. So it has been looked at several > times. > I pushed a recent patch-set 11 to 3217 that he hasn’t reviewed yet. It is > simply a change to the BusObjectInfo class to refactor several getter > methods but where each of the new getter methods is quite similar. > Maybe 100 lines of simple code affected. > > The BusAttachement class that conflicts with Sec2.0 is in a different two > commits. My changes to BusAttachment were pretty limited (just changed the > constructor and added a new method and import statement). > That should most likely not conflict with George’s changes, but I will > take a look at his changes. > > The BusAttachmentTest file might be more likely to have merge issue. > I could remove the BusAttachmentTest file from my commits, and add it back > later after Sec2.0 has merged into master??? > > -Paul > > On Sep 23, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Lioy, Marcello <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > I have merged a couple of Jorge’s ObjC changes, but others either have -1 > or merge conflicts/dependencies. I also noticed that a whole lot of the > java changes are now failing Jenkins. Does anyone have any insight into > what is going on there? > > Another specific concern I have is that two of Paul’s changes (8905 > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8905> and 8871 > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8871>) for dynamic interfaces > conflict with three changes related to Secuirty 2.0: > > <image001.gif>ASACORE-3156 Sec2.0 GetPermissionConfigurator > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/#/c/8869/4> > <image001.gif>ASACORE-3156 Sec2 ApplicationStateListener > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/#/c/8881/5> > <image001.gif>ASACORE-3156 Sec2 PermissionConfigurationListener > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/#/c/8877/3> > > Given where we are in the release process I am wondering if we want to > skip adding that feature (given the conflicts and that it is easily 3K of > new code), I have -1 those two plus the others I saw in this feature set ( > 8903 <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8903>, 8873 > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8873>, 8905 > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8905>, and 8797 > <https://git.allseenalliance.org/gerrit/8797>). > > Thoughts? > _______________________________________________ > Allseen-core mailing list > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > https://lists.allseenalliance.org/mailman/listinfo/allseen-core > > > >
_______________________________________________ Allseen-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.allseenalliance.org/mailman/listinfo/allseen-core
