> On Sept. 9, 2015, 5:33 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > Why is this being removed? The plan is to have a v1/executor.proto and an
> > unversioned executor.proto much like what we did with scheduler.proto.
>
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> Vinod, Why can't the executor driver just directly use the
> On Sept. 9, 2015, 5:33 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > Why is this being removed? The plan is to have a v1/executor.proto and an
> > unversioned executor.proto much like what we did with scheduler.proto.
Vinod, Why can't the executor driver just directly use the V1 protobuf ? The
unversioned
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/#review98222
---
Why is this being removed? The plan is to have a v1/executor.proto
> On Sept. 9, 2015, 5:33 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > Why is this being removed? The plan is to have a v1/executor.proto and an
> > unversioned executor.proto much like what we did with scheduler.proto.
>
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> Vinod, Why can't the executor driver just directly use the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/#review98103
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Guangya Liu
On 九月 8, 2015, 10:30 p.m.,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38191/#review98148
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [38191]
All tests passed.
-
