----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#review127172 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 80) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190324> Please don't include random fixes in reviews. It makes the review / history confusing. 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (lines 178 - 216) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190340> Why the inconsistency between a call operator and a friendship? 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 184) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190325> backticks around `ChildHook` 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 211) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190327> Do we use this `operator() ()` style elsewhere? 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 218) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190328> Why do we need to friend if we've provided a call operator? 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190329> why did you get rid of this whitespace? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 54) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190335> 2 new lines between function definitions 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 62) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190337> Taking the working directory by reference is extremely dangerous here. Why do it? Does the style guide default of `[=]` not work? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (lines 63 - 64) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190338> I don't understand how this comment applies to the `chdir` hook? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 72) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190336> 2 new lines between function definitions - Joris Van Remoortere On March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m., Joerg Schad wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5070 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5070 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously the subprocess interface supported a several options for the > child process such as setsid. In order to make the interface more > flexible we refactored such options into a vector of ChildHooks. > In order not to allow arbitrary code inside a ChildHook it has to be > constructed via pre-defined factory methods. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/ssl/gtest.hpp > 5435ddda1fd7dfcff1a0b28f2abe35feb707ceeb > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp > 8a3fe5526f480187441a8aee2c72636bec3e2b2d > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp > bb0fcbcd0dfa455c8700247c5b4ca0473fd163c3 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp > 727e940f12643974de4ff2734fba431b285b5de3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Tested entire chain see https://reviews.apache.org/r/45495/. > > > Thanks, > > Joerg Schad > >
