> On Sept. 15, 2015, 10:40 p.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > LGTM minus Two Nits:
> > 
> > 1. Can we update the description of the review to just say that this change 
> > just copies the existing unversioned protobuf to the V1 namespace.
> > 2. I am assuming that you would take care of Vinod's earlier comment around 
> > `invalid calls result in BadRequest` for `message Error` description in a 
> > separate patch as you had commented earlier.

1. Done
2. Yes, we have to capture this in both executor and scheduler protos. I'm 
sending a separate patch.


- Isabel


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38143/#review99117
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 15, 2015, 10:46 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38143/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 15, 2015, 10:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Anand Mazumdar, Ben Mahler, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3375
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3375
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Executor protobufswere introduced in Mesos for the HTTP API, they need to be 
> added to /v1 so they reflect changes made on v1/mesos.proto. This protobuf 
> ought to be changed as the executor HTTP API design evolves.
> Note: This proto is a copy from the existing unversioned executor proto with 
> only the necessary changes.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/v1/executor/executor.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   include/mesos/v1/executor/executor.proto PRE-CREATION 
>   src/Makefile.am 509256f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38143/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make && make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Isabel Jimenez
> 
>

Reply via email to