> On Oct. 20, 2015, 2:13 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > This looks great Joseph!
> > Can you stay consistent with the scheduler / framework terminology?
> > Which one should we use consistently in the code-base?
(oops, forgot to click publish earlier.)
I'll use "framework" whenever the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/#review103218
---
src/messages/messages.proto (line 77)
> On Oct. 20, 2015, 1:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> >
For now, I'll keep "agent". I'm fairly certain we refer to agents as agents
now.
> On Oct. 20, 2015, 1:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/messages/messages.proto, lines 132-137
> >
> On Oct. 20, 2015, 1:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> >
>
> Joseph Wu wrote:
> For now, I'll keep "agent". I'm fairly certain we refer to agents as
> agents now.
>
> Guangya Liu wrote:
> Joseph, do you have any reasons for why not update "slave" to "agent" in
> the comments? When I
> On Oct. 20, 2015, 8:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> >
>
> Joseph Wu wrote:
> For now, I'll keep "agent". I'm fairly certain we refer to agents as
> agents now.
Joseph, do you have any reasons for why not update "slave" to "agent" in the
comments? When I was fixing
> On Oct. 20, 2015, 8:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> >
>
> Joseph Wu wrote:
> For now, I'll keep "agent". I'm fairly certain we refer to agents as
> agents now.
>
> Guangya Liu wrote:
> Joseph, do you have any reasons for why not update "slave" to "agent" in
> the comments? When I
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/#review103210
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [39457]
All tests passed.
-
