> 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
> 
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
>     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.

Discarding it.


- Isabel


-----------------------------------------------------------
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
> 
>

Reply via email to