---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated April 20, 2015, 1:36 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On April 2, 2015, 6:23 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto, lines 19-23
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/6/?file=912077#file912077line19
Since allocator is within the same Unix process as Master, what is the
compatibility issue here?
Alexander
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated April 15, 2015, 2:16 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On April 2, 2015, 6:23 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto, lines 19-23
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/6/?file=912077#file912077line19
Since allocator is within the same Unix process as Master, what is the
compatibility issue here?
The comment
On April 2, 2015, 6:23 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/Makefile.am, line 711
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/6/?file=912078#file912078line711
not yours, but can you kill the trailing white space here?
Sure.
- Alexander
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated April 7, 2015, 12:46 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/#review78690
---
Ship it!
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated April 1, 2015, 2:25 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On March 23, 2015, 10:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto, lines 20-21
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902995#file902995line20
`s/breaking the backward compatibility/breaking backwards
compatibility/`
Also this is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated March 27, 2015, 4:25 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On March 23, 2015, 10:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto, lines 20-21
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902995#file902995line20
`s/breaking the backward compatibility/breaking backwards
compatibility/`
Also this is
On March 23, 2015, 11:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/local/local.hpp, line 28
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902997#file902997line28
This comment looks useless. Can we just get rid of it?
+1
On March 23, 2015, 11:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
On March 23, 2015, 6:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/Makefile.am, lines 234-239
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902996#file902996line234
In line with the above comment, it seems like `$(ALLOCATOR_PROTO)`
should live in `include/mesos/allocator/...` rather than
On March 23, 2015, 10:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/Makefile.am, lines 234-239
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902996#file902996line234
In line with the above comment, it seems like `$(ALLOCATOR_PROTO)`
should live in `include/mesos/allocator/...` rather than
On March 23, 2015, 10:27 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
src/Makefile.am, lines 170-171
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/4/?file=902996#file902996line170
Seems to me like these should be `allocator/allocator.pb.cc`, and
`../include/mesos/allocator/allocator.pb.h`. Could you
On March 17, 2015, 4:58 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp, line 39
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/3/?file=894463#file894463line39
Why do we have a separate allocator namespace? Wouldn't it be better to
just put the Allocator class in
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated March 23, 2015, 2:02 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/#review77477
---
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto
On March 17, 2015, 8:58 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
src/master/allocator/allocator.hpp, line 39
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/3/?file=894463#file894463line39
Why do we have a separate allocator namespace? Wouldn't it be better to
just put the Allocator class in
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/#review76805
---
Ship it!
The review looks good to me. However I have added one
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated March 13, 2015, 9:42 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
On March 10, 2015, 9:09 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
src/local/local.hpp, lines 26-46
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/diff/2/?file=886202#file886202line26
Can we include the allocator and master header instead?
Let's include allocator header and leave fwd decl master to keep
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/#review75894
---
include/mesos/master/allocator.proto
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya, Michael Park, and Niklas Nielsen.
Bugs:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31776/
---
(Updated March 5, 2015, 9:11 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya,
25 matches
Mail list logo