> On March 10, 2014, 6:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp, lines 642-646 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18952/diff/1/?file=514950#file514950line642> > > > > IIUC, this is changing the semantics of what happens when you call > > set/fail/discard on a promise that is already associated. No?
You should not have been calling set/fail/discard on a future that was already associated, this enforces as much. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18952/#review36678 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 10, 2014, 7:18 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18952/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 10, 2014, 7:18 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > In particular, doing associations is strictly safer now. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp > 27b0970bf1d1ae1b977ddfc2de5ee858f1031bf5 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18952/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
