> On June 9, 2015, 10:41 a.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, lines 5442-5444
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35119/diff/2/?file=980495#file980495line5442>
> >
> >     No need for the else block here.

True. I am dropping this because it's already committed. Will add you as a 
review for future oversubscription changes. I would stay away from an `else` 
here to avoid over-indentation which could constain the flow of (complicated) 
logic if being put inside the else block.

Here the code is clear either way and I like the symmetric look.


- Jiang Yan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35119/#review87238
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 8, 2015, 12:55 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35119/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 8, 2015, 12:55 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2776
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2776
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> state.json changes are in a subsequent review.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp deeb0d8c87a13315206556e1d0974cdd13e8224f 
>   src/master/master.cpp d436f845341ca33a534127da3bad8d8b2aa1175b 
>   src/master/metrics.hpp 833033c1912daee429b45423d24d365d8699a428 
>   src/master/metrics.cpp 264252c5159990fdf7a4569933a305d07bd7dd6e 
>   src/tests/oversubscription_tests.cpp 
> afd7ff4f2b50cb20cc2c8865b655ad1f8eb0c8b7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35119/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check.
> 
> - Modified a test to test the `total` resources metrics.
> - We don't have unit tests that use the revocable resources yet, when we add 
> that we should check `used` resources metrics too.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu
> 
>

Reply via email to