> On March 22, 2016, 2:16 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/pid.cpp, lines 13-23
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44136/diff/1/?file=1272977#file1272977line13>
> >
> >     Can we maybe organize it like this?
> >     
> >     ```
> >     #ifndef __WINDOWS__
> >     #include <arpa/inet.h>
> >     #include <netdb.h>
> >     #endif // __WINDOWS__
> >     
> >     #include <errno.h>
> >     #include <stdint.h>
> >     #include <stdio.h>
> >     #include <string.h>
> >     ```
> 
> Daniel Pravat wrote:
>     Thanks! I splited the change in two commits: 
>     https://reviews.apache.org/r/44136/
>     https://reviews.apache.org/r/45194/

@MPark, just fly by, a little formatting question. Do we already decide to 
gather conditioned headers in this way? Understand that it is more convenient, 
but seems like we have all the other `#ifdef __linux__` headers separated.


- Gilbert


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44136/#review124888
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 22, 2016, 7:49 p.m., Daniel Pravat wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/44136/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 22, 2016, 7:49 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alex Naparu, Daniel Pravat, Artem Harutyunyan, Alex 
> Clemmer, Joris Van Remoortere, Michael Park, M Lawindi, and Yi Sun.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Libprocess: [1/2] Conditioned out Windows-incompatible includes.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp 3ca0cfd37ac58f6d2bf5341dc88e8abed05fe994 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/pid.cpp 9387f59a3834af368bf37f8cc2e85102f0bb34f6 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44136/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> OSX: make
> Windows: build/run
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniel Pravat
> 
>

Reply via email to