> On Dec. 3, 2017, 2:14 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote: > > src/messages/flags.proto > > Lines 112-113 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64265/diff/1/?file=1906399#file1906399line112> > > > > `required` fields are generally harder to handler during upgrade once > > we introduce them. Can we find sane way to declare them `optional`? (Mayor > > be use comment to indicate what non-zero actual value is used when not set?)
Chatted with @Zhitao offline. Should be ok to change `required` field to `optional` if we need to deprecation these fields in an upgrade. - Gilbert ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64265/#review192650 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 1, 2017, 5:10 p.m., Gilbert Song wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/64265/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 1, 2017, 5:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Qian Zhang, Vinod Kone, and Zhitao Li. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8294 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8294 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added a flag conversion protobuf message 'ImageGcConfig'. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/messages/flags.proto 7ae9ef82cf9e918cac1eadc9f3ec0534ad4922b2 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64265/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Gilbert Song > >
