> On Sept. 9, 2015, 5:33 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > Why is this being removed? The plan is to have a v1/executor.proto and an > > unversioned executor.proto much like what we did with scheduler.proto. > > Anand Mazumdar wrote: > Vinod, Why can't the executor driver just directly use the V1 protobuf ? > The unversioned protobuf for scheduler was persisted since we had shipped the > scheduler driver with 0.23 to use the unversioned Call/Events or am I missing > something ? > > PS: I asked Isabel to remove it in CR 38143
Oops, I see what you mean now. You were referring to using this as an internal protobuf for now i.e. devolve(...) - V1->internal. We should shelve this review then, my bad. - Anand ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/#review98222 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 8, 2015, 10:30 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 8, 2015, 10:30 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Ben Mahler, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3393 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3393 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The executor protobuf definition living outside the v1/ directory is unused, > it should be removed to avoid confusion. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/executor/executor.hpp 85f181c > include/mesos/executor/executor.proto 52c84b3 > src/Makefile.am 5fdca0f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Isabel Jimenez > >
