> On Sept. 15, 2015, 1:56 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> > src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp, line 140
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/diff/1/?file=1072947#file1072947line140>
> >
> >     This could break existing 3rd party parsing; why not leave it set?

I am not so sure. This is fairly inconsistent with the rest of the format. Is 
there is a guideline that we can follow for such changes?


- Kapil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/#review99051
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 14, 2015, 4:55 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 14, 2015, 4:55 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Connor Doyle, Jie Yu, and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Also updated Task modelling to show labels only if Task.has_labels() is true. 
> This way, the "labels" field won't shown if there are no labels. This makes 
> it consistent with the modelling of rest of the "optional" fields.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/http.hpp 61ad5314fb14cab0d1cec4fb855fb89b7ac8cf60 
>   src/common/http.cpp 9c0d31e261788c492224345b9e0c32643ddb4156 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 08612700c456017638a9978e5fe9cfa466294c46 
>   src/master/master.cpp 5589eca4317b597de509f3387cfc349083b361ac 
>   src/tests/common/http_tests.cpp bf8712b11339b409514ab86c1f32eaf7e9c9a2f1 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kapil Arya
> 
>

Reply via email to