----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4408/#review6122 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! src/common/try.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4408/#comment13154> why not private / force Try::error("") ? src/master/master.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4408/#comment13152> Are there sanity checks anywhere that task.has_command() != task.has_executor() - John On 2012-03-20 00:55:15, Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/4408/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2012-03-20 00:55:15) > > > Review request for mesos, John Sirois and Vinod Kone. > > > Summary > ------- > > Made sure the slave sends status updates for tasks launched via a CommandInfo > and updated Task to make 'executor_id' optional for the cases when a task was > launched with a CommandInfo (w/ corresponding changes in the master and > slave)."[commandinfo_exit 4858fe1] Made sure the slave sends status updates > for tasks launched via a CommandInfo and updated Task to make 'executor_id' > optional for the cases when a task was launched with a CommandInfo (w/ > corresponding changes in the master and slave). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/try.hpp ed5611b > src/launcher/executor.cpp aac1053 > src/master/master.cpp 0222bb2 > src/messages/messages.proto 11a2c41 > src/slave/reaper.cpp 93e47e7 > src/slave/slave.hpp de304cb > src/slave/slave.cpp ddd1874 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4408/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin > >
