Github user sagar8192 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
Closed in favor of https://reviews.apache.org/r/65987/
---
Github user sagar8192 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
Posted a new review here: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65987/
---
Github user sagar8192 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
@jdef, @qianzhangxa: I have added some more information about the use case
to the [ticket](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8534). Please check
it out. We are planning to discuss this in
Github user qianzhangxa commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
I'd like to echo @jdef's comment, we need a clear use case for ip per
nested container. Our current status is, if framework launches multiple task
groups (pods) via a single default executor, all
Github user Gilbert88 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
A quick note that we could have a followup patch to add documents here:
http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/containerizer-internals/#linux-namespaces
---
Github user jdef commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/pull/263
What's the high level use case that's driving this change request? One of
the major goals of task-groups (pods) is to allow containers to share
networking and storage. What point is there in launching a
