Is this on 3.0 or master? Can you create a JIRA with some log output? On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is anyone seeing fairly consistent failure of the > > TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti:184 > > test? When I run from inside eclipse in isolation it seems ok, but running > a 'mvn test' seems to fail on this test with some consistency. The changes > for CURATOR-167 certainly haven't caused this to happen. > cheers > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks Scott, > > I will merge into master. > > cheers > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Yep, that looks perfect. Is CURATOR-167 done? If so, we can just > >> fast-foward merge it into master now. > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Cameron McKenzie < > >> [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Scott, > >> > Done, would you mind checking the origin/CURATOR-167 to make sure > that I > >> > haven't done anything wrong! I have done a git pull on a different > >> machine > >> > and it seems to be ok. > >> > cheers > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > You just force push your branch. > >> > > > >> > > If it's your feature branch, and you know you have it in a good > state > >> > > locally, you can just force push the remote branch into the same > >> state. > >> > > > >> > > You'd never want to do that to master, a release branch, or someone > >> > else's > >> > > branch. > >> > > On Aug 24, 2015 11:15 PM, "Cameron McKenzie" < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks Mike, > >> > > > That was a good description. The CURATOR-167 branch is definitely > >> there > >> > > as > >> > > > it's been a pull request for the last few months. So, I'll await > >> your > >> > > > thoughts in the morning. Alternatively, I can just merge master > >> instead > >> > > of > >> > > > rebasing it. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Yea, that's the big downside with rebasing, is that remotes > don't > >> > > exactly > >> > > > > keep up with the history. I'm going to try to explain this as > best > >> > as I > >> > > > > can, but usually I point people towards this excellent "Git for > >> Ages > >> > 4 > >> > > > and > >> > > > > Up" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4 - he > talks > >> > about > >> > > > > rebases at the very very end, around the 1:30 mark. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Essentially, your current version of the branch does not have > the > >> > > remote > >> > > > > version of the as an ancestor. Which is correct, when you did > the > >> > > rebase, > >> > > > > you wrote a new commit lineage. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I didn't realize that there was already a CURATOR-167 branch > >> pushed > >> > to > >> > > > the > >> > > > > repo when I gave you those steps. I'll have to look at what's > >> going > >> > on > >> > > > with > >> > > > > a fresh set of eyes in the morning. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > >> > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I just tried this and obviously I'm doing something wrong. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > git checkout CURATOR-167 > >> > > > > > git pull > >> > > > > > git rebase -i origin/master > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog with one commit with pick > >> > > > > > Save and exit > >> > > > > > #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me in a detached head > >> state > >> > > (I > >> > > > > > presume this is ok). > >> > > > > > Fix up the merge conflict > >> > > > > > git rebase --continue > >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes > >> > > > > > Save and exit > >> > > > > > #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds ok, tests run ok. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > git push > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ! [rejected] CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167 > >> (non-fast-forward) > >> > > > > > error: failed to push some refs to ' > >> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git' > >> > > > > > hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current > >> branch > >> > is > >> > > > > > behind > >> > > > > > hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes > (e.g. > >> > > > > > hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. > >> > > > > > hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' > >> for > >> > > > > details. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > There have been no changes on the branch since I did the pull > >> > before > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > rebase. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Any ideas? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie < > >> > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks Mike, > >> > > > > > > Will give it a spin today some time. > >> > > > > > > cheers > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike Drob < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do > >> > (assuming > >> > > > > > command > >> > > > > > >> line) > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you > are > >> > > > changing > >> > > > > > >> git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of > >> the > >> > > given > >> > > > > > >> branch > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie < > >> > > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Scott, > >> > > > > > >> > I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's > >> what > >> > > I'm > >> > > > > > used > >> > > > > > >> to, > >> > > > > > >> > but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and > >> fix > >> > up > >> > > > > > >> CURATOR-167 > >> > > > > > >> > as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting > >> there a > >> > > > > while). > >> > > > > > >> So, I > >> > > > > > >> > should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch? > >> > > > > > >> > cheers > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > LOL! So sorry to hear that. Yeah, it's definitely > >> possible > >> > > to > >> > > > > mess > >> > > > > > >> > > things up badly. If I'm doing something particularly > >> risky, > >> > > > I'll > >> > > > > > just > >> > > > > > >> > "git > >> > > > > > >> > > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a > branch > >> > > pointer > >> > > > > at > >> > > > > > my > >> > > > > > >> > > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south. I > also > >> use > >> > > > gitk > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > >> > > visualize sometimes. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that > it's > >> > > > *really* > >> > > > > > >> hard to > >> > > > > > >> > > merge the wrong branch. If the list of commits that > >> comes > >> > up > >> > > > > > doesn't > >> > > > > > >> > look > >> > > > > > >> > > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- > >> trying > >> > > to > >> > > > > > rebase > >> > > > > > >> > onto > >> > > > > > >> > > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of > >> > which > >> > > > > aren't > >> > > > > > >> > yours. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely > >> the > >> > > > right > >> > > > > > >> > approach > >> > > > > > >> > > if you're doing a merge strategy! I've just ended up > >> > > > gravitating > >> > > > > > to a > >> > > > > > >> > > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've > >> > mentioned. > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > >> > > > > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up > several > >> > > > projects > >> > > > > > >> with > >> > > > > > >> > it > >> > > > > > >> > >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking > into a > >> > > sweat. > >> > > > > > "git > >> > > > > > >> > 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 ( > >> > > > > > >> [email protected]) > >> > > > > > >> > >> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> > >> [email protected]> 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 ( > >> > > > > > >> [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > ) > >> > > > > > >> > >> > 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 < > >> > > > > > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in > >> 3.0. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman > < > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > [email protected]> 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 ( > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> [email protected]) wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time. > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan > Zimmerman < > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new > >> > > > > CURATOR-3.0? > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > -Jordan > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
