----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61148/#review181763 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp Lines 436-437 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61148/#comment257463> Any TODOs needed here to treat abandonment the same across recover and onAny? It seems a little inconsistent that onAny wouldn't be triggered for all cases that recover gets triggered. 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp Lines 1574-1584 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61148/#comment257464> Just curious if you have any thoughts here on using set vs associate across these, it was a little confusing that they are aliases. Is it that we have to use set when calling f because f may return a `T` instead of `Future<T>`? - Benjamin Mahler On July 27, 2017, 1:55 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/61148/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 27, 2017, 1:55 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added Future::recover. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp > cce950509f58022e79bb51a6e72ea1a005b9cb50 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/future_tests.cpp > 0c8725b9a5e64aaac6e3979e450a11e84f9bd45e > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61148/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
