-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38158/#review100114
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/common/values.cpp (lines 141 - 154)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38158/#comment157247>

    This seems like an awkward `else if` and `else` style. Could we rearrange 
the comments a little to get the common structure back? For example,
    
    ```cpp
    if (...) {
      ...
    } else if (range.start > current.start) {
      // If we are starting farther ahead, then there are 2 cases:
      // Ranges are overlapping and we can merge them.
      if (range.start <= currentEnd + 1) {
        ...
      } else { // No overlap and we are adding a new range.
        ...
      }
    }



src/common/values.cpp (lines 268 - 269)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38158/#comment157241>

    This fits in one line


- Michael Park


On Sept. 22, 2015, 8:55 p.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38158/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 22, 2015, 8:55 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske, Joris Van Remoortere, and Till 
> Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3051
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3051
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The goal of this refactoring was to reuse the Ranges objects as much as 
> possible, as prior there was substantial time spend in allocation/destruction 
> (MESOS-3051).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/values.cpp 750264e603b4cde2011f07f4434a4b34fe3e512f 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 0318885336409f7cc9dbd4a3daa9b52db197bbd1 
>   src/tests/values_tests.cpp fc35d97894a2de6207b9337180e2160e6f2cb1f5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38158/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joerg Schad
> 
>

Reply via email to