> On March 10, 2015, 6:33 p.m., Joerg Schad wrote: > > Is there a possiblity that this could break existing code (as we are now > > considering more fields in the comparison)?
By existing "code" do you mean frameworks that depend on this buggy behavior (e.g., ExecutorInfo)? If yes, i would rather they know about this bug sooner via TASK_LOST. Other than ExecutorInfo (and its sub messages), we have operators for SlaveInfo, MasterInfo, Credential and Task. These shouldn't break existing code. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31905/#review75922 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 10, 2015, 6:27 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/31905/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 10, 2015, 6:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, Joerg Schad, and Timothy Chen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2309 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2309 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > When new fields were added to protobufs these operators were not updated. > Fixed now. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/type_utils.cpp a1704c67d04d19f65d94dbe56a61bb28561e5bf3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31905/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
