> On May 21, 2013, 12:07 a.m., Chris Mattmann wrote:
> > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/tests/duration_tests.cpp, line 81
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11202/diff/4/?file=295006#file295006line81>
> >
> >     side comment: you're stringifying days, but expecting equal to a # of 
> > weeks. Just seems weird.

Yeah it's a bit odd. @benjaminhindman and I have discussed the algorithm for 
this and I'll improve this in a future review. Thanks!


- Jiang Yan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11202/#review20807
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 20, 2013, 11:53 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11202/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 20, 2013, 11:53 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> - Fixed Duration's stream insertion operator so that the output string does 
> not have trailing zeros after the decimal point. (libstout)
> - Changed Duration to 1) use int64_t to store the value in nanoseconds for 
> better precision; 2) use integers in constructors; 3) include overloaded 
> multiplication & division operators. (libstout)
> - Try<Duration> Duration::create(double seconds) is added to work with a 
> floating-point seconds input. (libstout)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/duration.hpp 
> c943ab196871cf4c55f2a2dce5ef85ffe3a22577 
>   third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp 
> 29f6fbda0ef0b5642358f32891a200e44acd4fe5 
>   third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/tests/duration_tests.cpp 
> 421615aa510f540ccfc0413d3252bbdedd70f7da 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11202/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu
> 
>

Reply via email to