> On April 24, 2014, 4:53 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> > include/mesos/containerizer/containerizer.proto, line 54
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/20668/diff/1/?file=567777#file567777line54>
> >
> >     Is it just me or is the comments a bit verbose and repetitive? :)
> >     
> >     How about something like,
> >     
> >     /* Encodes wait command for external containerizer program */
> >     
> >     ?
> >     
> >     Containerized wait/destroy/usage doesn't add much context.

It was an earlier comment suggesting to be descriptive on the source and 
destination of these messages. Your suggestion however still covers that and I 
really like it better -> hence will adapt accordingly.


- Till


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20668/#review41325
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 24, 2014, 4:15 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20668/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 24, 2014, 4:15 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updated Launch message to reflect latest commits on the TaskInfo related 
> containerizer Launch call/s. Renamed the Launch message attribute 
> "mesos_executor_path" to "mesos_libexec_directory" which will now hold the 
> libexec-path instead of the  mesos-executor path directly - thus being usable 
> for other mesos provided executables (e.g. mesos-usage).
> 
> Added Destroy, Wait and Usage messages to allow extending those messages in 
> the future, where needed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/containerizer/containerizer.proto 6ecd82e 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20668/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to