-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35179/#review87699
-----------------------------------------------------------


Looks like Cody already made path::join() variadic in commit 
b08fccf8f5ea325b8c38055b5f2c03509744dd9b "Switched path::join() to be 
variadic". How is your patch an improvement? What problem is it solving?

Please remove the "Might have some C++ style issues..." line in your 
description, since the apply-review script uses the description to create the 
commit message. You can add any comments to reviewers in the Testing section, 
since that is ignored by apply-review.

Your Testing Done section says that you "added some additional tests", but I 
don't see them in this patch. Looks like they were in a previous revision, but 
removed. Please add them back or update the Testing section.

ReviewBot says the patch doesn't apply cleanly, so please rebase.

- Adam B


On June 12, 2015, 3:32 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35179/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 12, 2015, 3:32 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B and Cody Maloney.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1733
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1733
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This change takes an un-complicated/naive route ( no trimming of values etc ) 
> at making path::join(...) variadic mainly in order to preserve the earlier 
> over-loaded join functionality.
> 
> Might have some C++ style issues owing to this being my first commit here.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp 
> d4df6502d1297ea3ad8e2a1e3bb16ea9d7c7913c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35179/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check + added some additional tests.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anand Mazumdar
> 
>

Reply via email to