Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Delete protobuf-nano #5622

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 22, 2019
Merged

Delete protobuf-nano #5622

merged 4 commits into from
May 22, 2019

Conversation

ejona86
Copy link
Member

@ejona86 ejona86 commented Apr 22, 2019 •
edited

See grpc/proposal#141

Not to be merged until the gRFC is approved. gRFC approved.

@ejona86
Delete protobuf-nano
a722a85 
This will be explained in a gRFC
@ejona86 ejona86 changed the title Delete protobuf-nano BLOCKED ON GRFC: Delete protobuf-nano Apr 23, 2019
@voidzcy voidzcy self-requested a review April 26, 2019 07:51
@voidzcy
Copy link
Contributor

voidzcy commented Apr 26, 2019

There are some other references you may want to remove:

Otherwise, LGTM.

@dapengzhang0
Copy link
Member

This will close #900.

voidzcy
voidzcy approved these changes Apr 30, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@voidzcy voidzcy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ejona86 ejona86 mentioned this pull request May 3, 2019
Merged
@ejona86 ejona86 changed the title BLOCKED ON GRFC: Delete protobuf-nano Delete protobuf-nano May 22, 2019
@ejona86 ejona86 merged commit 50b08ee into grpc:master May 22, 2019
@ejona86 ejona86 deleted the rm-nano branch May 22, 2019 15:49
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 20, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@voidzcy voidzcy voidzcy approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@ejona86 @voidzcy @dapengzhang0