-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#review84884
-----------------------------------------------------------


Where will this get re-used?


src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136329>

    It doesn't use the MesosContainerizer, it uses a helper that the MC uses.



src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136325>

    Why this change? This function shouldn't take a Try<>.



src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136330>

    {.., ..}?



src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136327>

    s/we/We/
    s/clutter/noise



src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136328>

    How much noise is there? This seems onerous to users to modify source and 
recompile to enable some debug output...



src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/#comment136326>

    This should be done by the caller when the launcher is created, indeed it's 
done with a number of CHECK_SOMEs. What's the motivation to changing this 
function?


- Ian Downes


On May 21, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Paul Brett wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 21, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chi Zhang, Ian Downes, Jie Yu, and Cong Wang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2332
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2332
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Factor out launch helper for easier reuse
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/port_mapping_tests.cpp b8c2db6d0a02f79d38a21c227575299880980502 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34436/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul Brett
> 
>

Reply via email to