[Containerization WG] Regular meeting tomorrow

Hi folks, Here is tomorrow's tentative agenda [YanX, Jason, Gilbert] pre/post hook discussion [Jpeach] Linux capabilities enhancement, MESOS-7671 More details can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z55a7tLZFoRWVuUxz1FZwgxkHeugtc2nHR89skFXSpU/edit# Please join us if you're

Fwd: Notification: Mesos Developer Community Meeting @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 3pm - 4pm (Apache Mesos)

-- Forwarded message - From: Google Calendar Date: Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:00 PM Subject: Notification: Mesos Developer Community Meeting @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 3pm - 4pm (Apache Mesos) To: Michael Park more details »

Re: Resource information when executing a docker image

Thanks everyone, I see this. I missed some small details. Wenzhao On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Wenzhao Zhang wrote: > Hi, Qian: > Thanks for the response. > I use command like this, to lunch a docker application: > ./build/bin/mesos-execute --master=152.54.14.7:5050

Re: Resource information when executing a docker image

Hi, Qian: Thanks for the response. I use command like this, to lunch a docker application: ./build/bin/mesos-execute --master=152.54.14.7:5050 --name=test --docker_image=mycoy/repository:hello01 --shell=false It's not mandatory to specify the resource here. In this case, what's the resource

Re: RFC: removing process implementations from common headers

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > Thanks James! As you said, removing Process implementations from the > headers is the existing practice, but we need to do a sweep to enforce this > consistently. Folks could work on this sweep today to make progress

Re: RFC: removing process implementations from common headers

Thanks James! As you said, removing Process implementations from the headers is the existing practice, but we need to do a sweep to enforce this consistently. Folks could work on this sweep today to make progress on the 3 benefits you outlined. This proposal to me seems to just be: (1) When

Re: RFC: removing process implementations from common headers

I'm in favor of the suggestion. Do you guys plan to do a single sweep or document the pattern somewhere and apply it only for new and refactored code? On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Yan Xu wrote: > This sounds reasonable to me. Do others have comments? > > --- > @xujyan