> On Dec. 12, 2012, 1:19 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/messages/messages.proto, line 49 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/diff/5/?file=236692#file236692line49> > > > > kill TODO since it's going to be difficult to make this required.. > > > > see: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/cpptutorial > > > > Snippet from the 'Extending a Protocol Buffer' section: > > > > "Sooner or later after you release the code that uses your protocol > > buffer, you will undoubtedly want to "improve" the protocol buffer's > > definition. If you want your new buffers to be backwards-compatible, and > > your old buffers to be forward-compatible – and you almost certainly do > > want this – then there are some rules you need to follow. In the new > > version of the protocol buffer: > > > > -you must not change the tag numbers of any existing fields. > > -you must not add or delete any required fields. > > -you may delete optional or repeated fields. > > -you may add new optional or repeated fields but you must use fresh > > tag numbers (i.e. tag numbers that were never used in this protocol buffer, > > not even by deleted fields). > > " > > > > Note the following: > > -you must not add or delete any required fields. > >
Moved checkpoint to framework info. But, fyi, as you will see in part 4/5, we are going to add new protobufs and callbacks. So the upgrade is most likely going to be backwards incompatible! > On Dec. 12, 2012, 1:19 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 335 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/diff/5/?file=236695#file236695line335> > > > > I think s/doCheckpoint/shouldCheckpoint is more intuitive n/a > On Dec. 12, 2012, 1:19 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/slave/slave.hpp, line 339 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/diff/5/?file=236695#file236695line339> > > > > I don't feel strongly about this anymore, since I think what you have > > now reads easier, so feel free to kill this TODO that I made you add. n/a > On Dec. 12, 2012, 1:19 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 991 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/diff/5/?file=236696#file236696line991> > > > > missed a return here? thank you. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/#review14339 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 12, 2012, 8:51 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 12, 2012, 8:51 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > Integrated SUM into slave. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 38235157d45bdccb676e5c3241c21b585a6f8801 > src/Makefile.am b2d1edf140797c7150cb4644d323296965c4f000 > src/slave/gc.cpp 679504e51922c5ea54a476d061262e8e8f2aa4b6 > src/slave/paths.hpp 98e7fd402919c50a26f69a2f1a1904cb877c5f43 > src/slave/slave.hpp bbba4404e9e2b1ff1e246f017cdad704438973ba > src/slave/slave.cpp 28fd4c336d8ac658cf92811d20066a6cfdf5a95e > src/slave/status_update_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION > src/tests/master_tests.cpp 948ab5dff34eeba1f3ce593a864ddf282c8b19ed > src/tests/status_update_manager_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7655/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
