-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/#review103307
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


This looks great Joseph!
Can you stay consistent with the scheduler / framework terminology?
Which one should we use consistently in the code-base?

- Joris Van Remoortere


On Oct. 20, 2015, 5:26 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 20, 2015, 5:26 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Artem Harutyunyan and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3759
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3759
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> A brief summary of each message was added.  
> 
> For messages with an associated Event/Call API object, a reference to the object was added.
> Additionally, there is a great deal of documentation overlap between these messages and the comments in mesos/scheduler.hpp and v1/scheduler/scheduler.proto.  Where necessary, some notes were added about the backwards compatibility of messages which are not instantiated in the code base.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/messages/messages.proto ea9a67e169a8a359a12be93b804783c7dcced0b7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> None.  (Comment change only)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>