Also, which branch should the CURATOR-214 fix come off? From memory the CURATOR-3.0 branch was broken in some capacity. Should I be branching off CURATOR-3.0-temp or something else? cheers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com> wrote: > Will do. In the meantime could you please have a look at my suggested > solution for CURATOR-228 (It's in the JIRA)? I don't want to start work on > it until we have an agreed solution. > cheers > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > >> Hi Cameron, >> >> Go ahead and do CURATOR-214 - I assigned it to you. >> >> -JZ >> >> >> >> On August 9, 2015 at 6:47:50 PM, Cameron McKenzie (mckenzie....@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> >> Sounds reasonable, what's left for 3.0.0? >> >> I think that watcher removal is done. So just the host provider ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-213) and new create APIs ( >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-214). >> >> I'm happy to pick up the new create APIs if no one else is looking at it. >> cheers >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: >> >>> On August 9, 2015 at 5:15:36 PM, Cameron McKenzie ( >>> mckenzie....@gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>> As for Curator 3.0.0, any ideas when ZK 3.5.x is mean to get out of >>> Alpha? >>> I've seen some grumblings on the ZK mailing list, but nothing concrete. I >>> >>> guess we just need to be ready for that date whenever it is. >>> cheers >>> Cam >>> >>> Who knows :) But, I know people are using it in Production so I think we >>> should just treat it as released software. >>> >>> >>> -JZ >>> >> >> >
