Code looks good to me (minus two typos that I'll fix before submitting).
Which just leaves the legal annoyance... Have you signed the contributor
license agreement?
http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html
http://code.google.com/legal/corporate-cla-v1.0.html
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at
Apparently codereview.appspot.com allows over-zealous browser caching. I
had to refresh. I see it now. Will review tonight or tomorrow.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> I still only see the first patch
On Sep 25, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Kenton Varda wrote:
> I still only see the first patch set.
You don't see this?
"Patch Set 2 : Same changes, but might fix problem where side-by-side
diffs didn't work"
I'm looking at http://codereview.appspot.com/6051 and I see it. And
if I look at the side-
I still only see the first patch set.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Travis Pouarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > >http://codereview.appspot.com/6051
>
> On Sep 25, 1:12 pm, "Kenton Varda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems like something went wrong with the upload. When I look at the
> >http://codereview.appspot.com/6051
On Sep 25, 1:12 pm, "Kenton Varda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems like something went wrong with the upload. When I look at the
> side-by-side diffs it just says "error: old chunk mismatch". Do you have
> any idea what might have gone wrong?
Strang
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Travis Pouarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This first one reveals a disagreement about whether a directory name
> should be followed by a slash:
>
> [ RUN ] CommandLineInterfaceTest.OutputDirectoryIsFileError
> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_u
It seems like something went wrong with the upload. When I look at the
side-by-side diffs it just says "error: old chunk mismatch". Do you have
any idea what might have gone wrong?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Travis Pouarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 24, 7:17 pm, "Kenton Vard
I also cannot speak for Google as a whole, or even the open source
department. However, my personal opinion is that I would like users of
Protocol Buffers to have the freedom to use any license they want. It would
be pretty disappointing to me if some project was unable to use Protocol
Buffers si
I'll be updating the documentation to explain this better soon. It's a bit
complicated. Check out unittest_custom_options.proto for an example. Let
me try to explain briefly...
First of all, note that UninterpretedOption is actually only ever used
within protoc, between the parsing phase and th
Since there extensible options are almost released, I though I would
start a thread to discuss what would be interesting to support.
The current options affect the code generation trade offs for a given
language:
optional string java_package = 1;
optional string java_outer_classname = 8;
I can support the new options in Haskell right after I finish the
unknown field loading/storing/writing.
But work is busy right now, so I won't estimate how long I will take.
I have more than a few questions about the new options below:
Kenton Varda wrote:
> * It is now possible to define cus
(Note: I'm definitely not speaking for Google in this post! Just my
own personal opinions.)
On Sep 25, 10:33 am, "Ande Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A majority of people are using GPLv3 for newer projects.
For the whole of open source? That sounds unlikely to me. When picking
between diff
A majority of people are using GPLv3 for newer projects. Those with GPLv2
can switch to GPLv3 easily in most cases.
IF it was left as Apache it is GPLv3 compatible anyways.
Why did you decide against GPLv3?
2008/9/24 Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi all,
>
> We've decided to change the li
13 matches
Mail list logo
