---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
(Updated Oct. 15, 2014, 12:21 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review56701
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [26229]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review56860
---
Ship it!
Will commit this shortly.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
(Updated Oct. 9, 2014, 4:34 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review56038
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [26229]
All tests passed.
-
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
On Oct. 7, 2014, 9:46 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
I'm curious why you need to expose both sides of the bounds? Our tests
currently hard-code 1 second as the reap interval, and since Ian did not
change the maximum, the tests continue to function as expected.
Are you planning to follow
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
(Updated Oct. 8, 2014, 9:30 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55779
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [26229]
All tests passed.
-
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
On Oct. 7, 2014, 9:46 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
I'm curious why you need to expose both sides of the bounds? Our tests
currently hard-code 1 second as the reap interval, and since Ian did not
change the maximum, the tests continue to function as expected.
Are you planning to follow
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
(Updated Oct. 7, 2014, 4:39 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:04 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/reap.hpp, lines 12-14
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710087#file710087line12
Can you add some more description to this ticket?
If a caller is to use these values, their
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55675
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [26229]
All tests passed.
-
On Oct. 6, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, lines 124-127
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Why do you need a variable for this? Can't this just be a 'return'
statement?
If there's a reason
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55718
---
I'm curious why you need to expose both sides of the bounds? Our
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55491
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55492
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Till Toenshoff
On Oct. 1, 2014, 2:12 p.m.,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
(Updated Oct. 6, 2014, 1:14 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Oct. 6, 2014, 12:50 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp, line 124
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/diff/1/?file=710088#file710088line124
Did we decide on our auto use-cases yet? If I remember correctly, then
we did definitely say that iterators are a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55582
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/reap.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55583
---
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/reap.hpp
On Oct. 1, 2014, 5:08 p.m., Ian Downes wrote:
I'm curious why this is useful. Is there some code elsewhere that will
depend on knowing these parameters? If so, why not just expose them as
constants?
Yes, I need these constants for graceful shutdown tests. I used static
functions for
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55214
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Ian Downes
On Oct. 1, 2014, 7:12 a.m.,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/
---
Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Ian Downes, Jie Yu, and Till Toenshoff.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55077
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [26229]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/26229/#review55084
---
I'm curious why this is useful. Is there some code elsewhere that
31 matches
Mail list logo