---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review81038
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Niklas Nielsen
On April 21, 2015, 11:45
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 21, 2015, 6:03 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 21, 2015, 6:45 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 20, 2015, 1:50 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On April 17, 2015, 1:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/local/local.cpp, lines 141-145
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/8/?file=929832#file929832line141
What's the point of setting `_allocator` here? It looks like it only
gets passed to the `new Master(...)` call.
On April 17, 2015, 1:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/tests/mesos.hpp, lines 866-874
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/8/?file=929838#file929838line866
An idea to avoid this: we could promote the `createAllocator` currently
in `MasterAllocatorTest` to this file. Then we
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review80445
---
src/local/local.cpp
On April 17, 2015, 1:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/tests/mesos.hpp, lines 866-874
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/8/?file=929838#file929838line866
An idea to avoid this: we could promote the `createAllocator` currently
in `MasterAllocatorTest` to this file. Then we
On April 17, 2015, 1:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, line 77
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/8/?file=929836#file929836line77
I see this is the place where you wanted to use `ASSERT_SOME` but
couldn't due to the [gtest
On April 2, 2015, 7:59 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/master/allocator/mesos/allocator.hpp, line 47
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/6/?file=912110#file912110line47
Do you still want the constructor public?
Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
I think there is no reason to hide
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 15, 2015, 2:19 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On April 2, 2015, 7:59 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/master/allocator/mesos/allocator.hpp, line 47
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/6/?file=912110#file912110line47
Do you still want the constructor public?
I think there is no reason to hide the c-tor. I can imagine somebody
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 7, 2015, 12:49 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review78711
---
src/master/allocator/mesos/allocator.hpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated April 1, 2015, 2:28 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On March 24, 2015, 2:41 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/tests/master_allocator_tests.cpp, line 97
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/4/?file=903029#file903029line97
1. Do we need this to be `virtual` right now?
2. `s/createAllocatorInstance/CreateAllocator/`
3. Can we
On March 24, 2015, 2:41 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/tests/master_allocator_tests.cpp, line 97
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/diff/4/?file=903029#file903029line97
1. Do we need this to be `virtual` right now?
2. `s/createAllocatorInstance/CreateAllocator/`
3. Can we
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated March 27, 2015, 4:27 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review77570
---
src/tests/master_allocator_tests.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated March 23, 2015, 2:11 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review76679
---
For consistency, I would still root for Allocator::create()
On March 10, 2015, 9:11 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
How about we try to make this look like the Containerizer factory-like
method (Containerizer::create)? That would be a bit more consistent
I think `Containerizer` is not a good example here. I would rather point to
`Authenticator` and /
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated March 13, 2015, 9:50 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/#review75978
---
How about we try to make this look like the Containerizer
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31265/
---
(Updated March 5, 2015, 9:07 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
25 matches
Mail list logo