---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/
---
(Updated Dec. 17, 2013, 1:22 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Dec. 10, 2013, 6:38 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
src/log/log.cpp, line 305
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/diff/5/?file=394481#file394481line305
When would we want '!strict' with the log? I see you commented on why
we might not want strict for the replica when writing
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/
---
(Updated Dec. 13, 2013, 5:37 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Dec. 10, 2013, 6:38 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
src/log/log.cpp, line 173
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/diff/5/?file=394481#file394481line173
Rather than holding on to the LogProcess*, how about we make
Log::recover() return a FutureSharedReplica and that's how we get
On Dec. 10, 2013, 6:38 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
src/log/log.cpp, line 305
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/diff/5/?file=394481#file394481line305
When would we want '!strict' with the log? I see you commented on why
we might not want strict for the replica when writing
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/#review29966
---
src/log/log.hpp
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/#comment57464
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/
---
(Updated Dec. 5, 2013, 7:28 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/
---
(Updated Dec. 4, 2013, 1:16 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15802/
---
(Updated Nov. 25, 2013, 5:55 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
