-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove version read/write logic in Verify Response #30879
Merged
hub-cap
merged 9 commits into
elastic:master
from
hub-cap:repository_remove_bwc_in_master
May 31, 2018
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fa73c57
Remove version read/write logic in Verify Response
hub-cap 9eca437
Revert the removal of get in getNodes
hub-cap 9bc54f6
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap 9d47634
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap 936aec8
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap 4c013ac
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap c146289
Fix compile error from merge
hub-cap 7da72fe
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap 120222f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into repository_remove…
hub-cap File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you should keep the method named the same in 6.x and master. Also we said we'd prefer to go with getters and setters rather than the bare names for these things. As much as I personally like the names better, we said getters and setters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
heh, i def forgot to mod this in 6.x, and i can make that its own PR. But if we prefer get/set then, im +1 to that as well.. I didnt know we had a strong pref toward get/set, I actually thought it was the opposite, even tho we had a lot more get/set in the codebase. Regardless, sync'ing w/ whats in 6.x is super important imho.