> On Aug. 1, 2013, 6:48 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/status_update_manager.hpp, line 110
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/13187/diff/1/?file=332292#file332292line110>
> >
> >     Any reason not to flatten these: Future<Try<bool>> => Future<bool>?
> 
> Vinod Kone wrote:
>     good call. i will flatten all the status update manager functions. will 
> do that in a subsequent review though. sg?

SGTM!


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13187/#review24419
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 1, 2013, 5:30 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/13187/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 1, 2013, 5:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-606
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-606
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changed the semantics of StatusUpdateStream::acknowedgement()'s return value. 
> 
> Instead of informing about duplicate, it now informs whether the status 
> update stream is terminated or not. This is definitely more powerful/useful 
> information for slave to have. Duplicates are now considered Errors.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 97f2083db0dec2c1c9415f65d9bf8a834653bd18 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 7f6e6b456890db438092f19a22e4dd816bb33d04 
>   src/slave/status_update_manager.hpp 
> 795e74c2b88a071eb7ba720118e06077b6e41238 
>   src/slave/status_update_manager.cpp 
> 9e9e4e2a47a609d65ed69a57de595852144a86c8 
>   src/tests/slave_recovery_tests.cpp 1871e3ba41e65dcbd4b95779dda068f6a1a2ecb3 
>   src/tests/status_update_manager_tests.cpp 
> 42395324dfe49659bee2229c6573ffef0874d923 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/13187/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to