-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/#review67579
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!



include/mesos/mesos.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/#comment111616>

    Can we capture the examples of how to use this in the comments here too 
please?



include/mesos/mesos.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/#comment111617>

    Why not repeated here?



include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/#comment111618>

    It's not obvious to me if there are any caveats with respect to the 
semantics about how offers "flatten" in 'offer_ids' and how the 'operations' 
apply to those flattened offers. Can we elaborate on this as a comment? We'll 
need/want to do this for the new function we add to the SchedulerDriver too.


- Benjamin Hindman


On Jan. 9, 2015, 10:56 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 9, 2015, 10:56 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Jie Yu, Michael Park, and 
> Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In order to support performing operations against offers (e.g. reserving / 
> unreserving resources, creating / destroying volumes), this introduces the 
> notion of an Accept Call, complementary to Decline.
> 
> Launch becomes an alias to an Accept with LaunchTask(s) operations.
> 
> Please take the time to look over this and share your thoughts!
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 6c9f5d351bf7befc0a4956d0176018c80d96418d 
>   include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto 
> 5491c59e7addda0ee5d95a019d7eaeb953ca82e4 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29785/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to