> On Oct. 25, 2012, 5:58 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> >
> 
> Ben Mahler wrote:
>     Using the absolute path actually makes my life much easier, I just 
> assumed we may want to hide it.
>     The webui could just use the executor.directory directly, instead of 
> hardcoding the path format.
>     Users of the webui would also be able to know the full path to their 
> files, which should help them debug.
>     
>     Does this sound good? If so, I'd update the subsequent review in this 
> chain: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7642/

sgtm


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7658/#review12779
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 25, 2012, 1:08 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7658/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 25, 2012, 1:08 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This replaces our run directory numbers with the executor uuids.
> 
> Ex:
> .../executorFoo/runs/0
> .../executorFoo/runs/1111-1111-1111-1111
> 
> This ensures we don't ever write to an old directory that was gc'ed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/paths.hpp 48a7be0ae33785206ebb1985647178224d6bcfb8 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 343c353027dbd2a7c1be8cee99a1d59367169177 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 5af7464aae17c00a0e707421982d7cb055aabc6c 
>   src/slave/state.hpp dcadd511063584cde51f533e2120f4eab5145fd2 
>   src/slave/state.cpp c8406fbb5586bca5b7f169a2ef937c958626dee1 
>   src/tests/slave_state_tests.cpp 0e232ff3ed773f3bdccc05e716b66d106d80fb2f 
>   third_party/libprocess/include/stout/fs.hpp 
> 1516d0b6fa6e0ced26bb08ab6a4fadf28232124f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7658/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Updated tests + make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to