I have a GRPC application that uses the latest latest protobuf (using the
master branch). I noticed the following behavior changed some time in the
last week and unfortunately I do not know which change to protobuf caused
this change, I wonder if anyone could shed some light on what the proble
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Marcos Juarez wrote:
> I just realized, there's a typo in my example. It should say:
>
>reserved 4, 108, 109;
>
> Note there's no comma after the reserved keyword.
>
> Also, I checked, and the protoc compiler I'm using reports itself as:
> *libprotoc
> 2.5.
I just realized, there's a typo in my example. It should say:
reserved 4, 108, 109;
Note there's no comma after the reserved keyword.
Also, I checked, and the protoc compiler I'm using reports itself as:
*libprotoc
2.5.0*
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Marcos Juarez wrote:
> I ran into
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Marcos Juarez wrote:
> I ran into a situation today in which I needed to use the "reserved"
> keyword in a protobuf definition, so that in the future, nobody would use
> those fields. I've attached a screenshot of what the docs say, from
> https://developers.goog
I ran into a situation today in which I needed to use the "reserved"
keyword in a protobuf definition, so that in the future, nobody would use
those fields. I've attached a screenshot of what the docs say, from
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#reserved
[image: Inline imag
