> On Oct. 20, 2015, 2:13 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote: > > This looks great Joseph! > > Can you stay consistent with the scheduler / framework terminology? > > Which one should we use consistently in the code-base?
(oops, forgot to click publish earlier.) I'll use "framework" whenever the object has "framework" in its name, or if it is referring to a `FrameworkID` or `FrameworkInfo`. For other objects, especially ones that deal with the scheduler driver/library or with offers/tasks/agents/executors/statuses, I'll refer to "scheduler". (That's my take on the fuzzy boundary between the two terms.) - Joseph ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/#review103307 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 21, 2015, 11:05 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 21, 2015, 11:05 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Artem Harutyunyan and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3759 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3759 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > A brief summary of each message was added. > > For messages with an associated Event/Call API object, a reference to the > object was added. > Additionally, there is a great deal of documentation overlap between these > messages and the comments in mesos/scheduler.hpp and > v1/scheduler/scheduler.proto. Where necessary, some notes were added about > the backwards compatibility of messages which are not instantiated in the > code base. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/messages/messages.proto ea9a67e169a8a359a12be93b804783c7dcced0b7 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39457/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > None. (Comment change only) > > > Thanks, > > Joseph Wu > >
