----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/#review95758 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! It seems like Forbidden should be used for authorization issues, can we just have the non-leaders say they are not available? It seems to make sense, since they are not elected, they are not available. src/master/http.cpp (lines 345 - 359) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/#comment150868> Would be nice to have some metrics for visibility into these, given we have dropped_messages for pid-based schedulers. TODO? src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp (line 378) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/#comment150874> It seems strange to me that forbidden is coming from non-leaders, forbidden seems like an authorization issue, no? Don't we want non-leaders to just say they are not available? src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp (line 379) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/#comment150872> Or the leadership changed since we sent this message..? - Ben Mahler On Aug. 18, 2015, 6:28 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 18, 2015, 6:28 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3290 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3290 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Master returns an error when it is not the leader or is still doing recovery. > This is same as what happens with PID frameworks. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/http.cpp d016b3c055a06e7aa0649a36fd4b095c2938ba56 > src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp 37f41debc394a773f33465dab1a89d7ef7264f64 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37588/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
