> On Jan. 17, 2017, 1:30 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > With respect to the comment, do you know when this check would fail?
> > 
> > E.g. if an agent >= 0.24.0 registers the check holds
> > 
> > Since by committing this I'm taking accountability of it being safe, it 
> > would be great if you could quickly convince me that you did your homework. 
> > :)
> 
> Jay Guo wrote:
>     OK let me try to explain. The whole idea is to replace `framework_id` in 
> favor of `FrameworkInfo.id()` so we could deprecate 
> `RunTaskMessage.FrameworkID`.
>     
>     Prior to 0.24.0, when the master sends `RunTaskMessage` to an agent, it 
> may not have `FrameworkID` in `FrameworkInfo`. In this case, when a master 
> re-construct `FrameworkInfo` after a failover from agent's `FrameworkInfo`, 
> it does *NOT* have `FrameworkID`.
>     
>     With MESOS-905 being fixed, we garantee that `FrameworkInfo` always 
> contains `FrameworkID`, thus this `CHECK` holds.
>     
>     Does this make sense at all? Please let me know if I'm missing someting 
> here since there's quite some history to dig up.

This seems accurate to me.


- Michael


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/54898/#review161959
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 12, 2017, 12:57 a.m., Jay Guo wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/54898/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 12, 2017, 12:57 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, Guangya Liu, and Joris Van 
> Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added a CHECK in updateFrameworkInfo.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp 89b3c394b268a8645885412aeb19980db8d73c69 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54898/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jay Guo
> 
>

Reply via email to