> On March 11, 2016, 11:43 p.m., Avinash sridharan wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/network/spec.proto, line 46
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44549/diff/2/?file=1294410#file1294410line46>
> >
> >     Can we list the required field before the optional fields? We can keep 
> > the position identifiers as is, if required.

Actually I'd like to remove it, please take a look at 
https://github.com/appc/cni/blob/master/pkg/types/types.go#L59:L66, this field 
is even not in the struct of CNI.


> On March 11, 2016, 11:43 p.m., Avinash sridharan wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/network/spec.proto, line 57
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44549/diff/2/?file=1294410#file1294410line57>
> >
> >     Ditto on arrangement of required followed by optional fields.

Ditto.


- Qian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44549/#review123148
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 10, 2016, 10:44 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44549/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 10, 2016, 10:44 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Avinash sridharan, Gilbert Song, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4759
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4759
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Introduced a protobuf message "NetworkConfig".
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/CMakeLists.txt 8f57a5701073bf1eaaa223383e928cf5db8f8ae4 
>   src/Makefile.am a41e95ddeb838fdebf4ced953c4a29181916e261 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/network/spec.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/network/spec.proto PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44549/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Qian Zhang
> 
>

Reply via email to