Open
Conversation
Looks like Protobuf 3 is not compatible with protobuf 2. yay.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
So... Yeah.
Protobuf-3.
This compiles with Protobuf-3 but holy cow are there breaking changes. (So many breaking changes.)
Granted, the changes are good, and they do make things a lot more Rust-y, but wow, just so, so many breaking changes.
e.g. You now no longer need to create a mutable version of some structure like
PubsubMessageand then call getter/setter functions. You can instead useNeat, huh? Yep. (So many breaking changes.)
You can also replace instances of
RepeatingField()withvec