> On May 1, 2018, 12:42 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/master/metrics.cpp
> > Lines 571-573 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66842/diff/4/?file=2014749#file2014749line571>
> >
> >     Could we make this consistent with the others instead of having a 
> > special variable by leveraging Duration::max()?
> 
> Greg Mann wrote:
>     Yep that's certainly possible. I elected to use a separate object for the 
> infinite case to make it clearer to the reader (especially in 
> incrementOfferFilterBuckets() that the infinite case is a total counter of 
> offer filters. If you don't see that as providing much benefit, then perhaps 
> I should just put that case in the map as well. WDYT?

I'm gonna drop this one - the two options are functionally equivalent, and I 
think the current code does improve readability slightly.


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66842/#review202172
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 6, 2018, 9:50 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66842/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 6, 2018, 9:50 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, Gastón Kleiman, Gilbert Song, and 
> Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> These per-framework metrics provide counts of the numbers
> of filters set by each framework, bucketed according to
> the 'refuse_seconds' duration.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp ddc8df0ea82241be6c733237feef1553c7669eb2 
>   src/master/metrics.hpp ec76dbcd1d1fa5349d62ce73fb9603e1986a776b 
>   src/master/metrics.cpp e46ead79f3f29e285426f9d061337077f453aa45 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66842/diff/9/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to