> On Sept. 15, 2015, 1:56 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote: > > src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp, line 140 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/diff/1/?file=1072947#file1072947line140> > > > > This could break existing 3rd party parsing; why not leave it set?
I am not so sure. This is fairly inconsistent with the rest of the format. Is there is a guideline that we can follow for such changes? - Kapil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/#review99051 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 14, 2015, 4:55 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 14, 2015, 4:55 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Connor Doyle, Jie Yu, and Niklas Nielsen. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Also updated Task modelling to show labels only if Task.has_labels() is true. > This way, the "labels" field won't shown if there are no labels. This makes > it consistent with the modelling of rest of the "optional" fields. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/http.hpp 61ad5314fb14cab0d1cec4fb855fb89b7ac8cf60 > src/common/http.cpp 9c0d31e261788c492224345b9e0c32643ddb4156 > src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 08612700c456017638a9978e5fe9cfa466294c46 > src/master/master.cpp 5589eca4317b597de509f3387cfc349083b361ac > src/tests/common/http_tests.cpp bf8712b11339b409514ab86c1f32eaf7e9c9a2f1 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38366/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Kapil Arya > >
