> On 八月 30, 2015, 5:10 p.m., Robert Lacroix wrote:
> > src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.hpp, line 153
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37873/diff/3/?file=1059860#file1059860line153>
> >
> >     Are we quiescing resources or rather offers? I think it should be 
> > called `quiesceOffers` so it's symmetrical to `reviveOffers`.
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     Technically, allocator does not know anything about offers, only about 
> allocations. This may change soon (we think about pulling offers management 
> into allocator), but until then I find this naming misleading.

Alex, what about addressing this in future patches after pulling offers 
management into allocator landed? Thanks.


- Guangya


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37873/#review97031
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 九月 4, 2015, 2:19 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37873/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 九月 4, 2015, 2:19 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, and Vinod 
> Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3037
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3037
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add quiesce logic in allocator
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/master/allocator.hpp 659f37b3f9d9fa02da9bdb6c85cd3c180a24b73a 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/allocator.hpp 
> aa55755a9c3250579e9366bdbc17a2449e95d659 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.hpp 
> cb4020dea897ef198cd9898cabecf61edfade834 
>   src/master/master.cpp 56bcbcc08fa0f98416c5048080adb25efc588019 
>   src/tests/mesos.hpp 906948d459b5a88a4ad7952801eb8c540b58c569 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37873/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Guangya Liu
> 
>

Reply via email to