> On Oct. 18, 2017, 4:04 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> > include/mesos/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto
> > Lines 47-48 (original), 47-48 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/diff/8/?file=1861933#file1861933line47>
> >
> >     Do we need to expose `framework_id` to RP if we have `operation_uuid`?

We need to. The `OfferOperation` that the RP needs to report back to RP manager 
after re-registration need `framework_id`.


- Jie


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#review188451
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 19, 2017, 12:08 a.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 19, 2017, 12:08 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, Gaston Kleiman, 
> Greg Mann, Jan Schlicht, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updated protobuf definitions related to offer operations.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 859fdff4d9a0604bc506b08af79075084ae23466 
>   include/mesos/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto 
> f5a9073075327019fd133bd51265f695ef464845 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto cfd4abd3af1d8c9fbd31659161eada9ec9f92282 
>   include/mesos/v1/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto 
> e5cbede5b6e57a8641fca1ebfee5454f292cc24c 
>   src/messages/messages.proto 0a32b3457e9143a7d48670610ca3e56dd516136f 
>   src/resource_provider/manager.cpp 31fcb789f5ab907511e868c374c49f7457a33ed3 
>   src/resource_provider/validation.cpp 
> d2927227f60ab0d4ae2481ad73a31ee444b48ee0 
>   src/tests/resource_provider_validation_tests.cpp 
> f182bff4670318e9de22c2915c5dbb423a74ad6c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/diff/9/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jie Yu
> 
>

Reply via email to