On 2013/12/18 14:39:38, rog wrote: > LGTM with one thought below.
> https://codereview.appspot.com/43650045/diff/1/ec2/ec2test/server.go > File ec2/ec2test/server.go (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/43650045/diff/1/ec2/ec2test/server.go#newcode567 > ec2/ec2test/server.go:567: PrivateDNSName: fmt.Sprintf("%s.internal.invalid", > id), > I wonder if we should do it for these addresses too.
I can see it could be useful, but I think only if you could control which ones are empty, or if they're initially all empty and each one is updated on successive calls. That's a much bigger change, though, that I'd like to leave to when we need it.
https://codereview.appspot.com/43650045/
« Back to merge proposal
On 2013/12/18 14:39:38, rog wrote:
> LGTM with one thought below.
> https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/43650045/ diff/1/ ec2/ec2test/ server. go server. go (right):
> File ec2/ec2test/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/43650045/ diff/1/ ec2/ec2test/ server. go#newcode567 server. go:567: PrivateDNSName: "%s.internal. invalid" ,
> ec2/ec2test/
fmt.Sprintf(
> id),
> I wonder if we should do it for these addresses too.
I can see it could be useful, but I think only if you could control
which ones are empty, or if they're initially all empty and each one is
updated on successive calls.
That's a much bigger change, though, that I'd like to leave to when we
need it.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/43650045/