> On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 939
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line939>
> >
> >     Can you please elaborate more for why "in maintaince purpose, this 
> > field is always empty"? Why cannot an operator set the resources that s/he 
> > want to inverse?

Two reasons:

* Maintenance primitives is currently an MVP.  So an operator can only schedule 
a whole machine.  We have plans for finer granularity, but that's not 
implemented yet.
* InverseOffers are not maintenance-specific.  We mention maintenance in the 
comment because this functionality is built-in.


> On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 914
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line914>
> >
> >     s/(i.e. which slave)/(i.e. which framework)
> >     
> >     I think that the comments for this may need to be updated as here if no 
> > framework id is specified, then all framework's resources will be request 
> > back.

The language here is correct.  

As with offers, the `required FrameworkID` is required and designates the 
framework receiving the offer.  Since only one framework receives an offer at 
once, it does not make sense to tell one framework to deallocate resources from 
another framework.


> On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 125
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line125>
> >
> >     Unavailability is a time interval or period, but from the name of 
> > "Unavailability", someone may not able to understand it specifies the time 
> > interval or period for maintain. What about using name 
> > "UnavailableInterval" or "UnavailablePeriod" which might be more meaningful?

"Availability", semantically, already includes a concept of time (i.e. "When 
are you available?").


- Joseph


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96259
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
> Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
> MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
> 
> No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
> see MESOS-1474).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to