---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36910/#review93579
---
It's unclear what failed in that auto build. It appears unrelated
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36951/
---
Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
Bugs: MESOS-3052
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36951/#review93647
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36951]
All tests passed.
-
On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/diff/1/?file=1024924#file1024924line19
why did you remove these headers?
i think we decided to explicitly include all the headers that are
Jie, I thought that duplicate includes of headers don't have a significant
impact on compile times given our include guards, why do you say it slows
down the compilation?
e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Guard-Macros.html
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Vinod Kone
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36951/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 8:43 p.m.)
Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
aha, I just thought it might slow down the compilation. But looks like it
will not given the optimization. I guess clang should have the same
optimization as well.
The burden of updating the headers while doing refactor is real. It'll be
really cool if we can automate this.
BTW: the code base is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/
---
Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
Repository: mesos
Description
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36927/#review93657
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Vinod Kone
On July 30, 2015, 10:16 p.m.,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/#review93679
---
Ship it!
src/tests/authentication_tests.cpp (line 199)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34129/#review93678
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [34128, 34129]
All tests
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36828/#review93654
---
Ship it!
I'll fix up and commit, thanks!
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34128/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 10:36 p.m.)
Review request for mesos.
Changes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34129/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 10:36 p.m.)
Review request for mesos and Cosmin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36844/#review93659
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 27, 2015, 9:15
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/#review93658
---
Mind adding a test for this if one doesn't exist already? Should be
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36865/#review93669
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Joris Van Remoortere
On July 29, 2015,
On July 30, 2015, 9:45 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/diff/1/?file=1024924#file1024924line19
why did you remove these headers?
i think we decided to explicitly include all the headers that are
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36864/#review93667
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/#review93668
---
Bad patch!
Reviews applied: [36927]
Failed command:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36783/#review93672
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 29, 2015, 11:24
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/#review93687
---
Bad patch!
Reviews applied: [36927]
Failed command:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36956/
---
Review request for mesos, Ian Downes, Timothy Chen, Vinod Kone, and Jiang Yan
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36959/#review93663
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Joris Van Remoortere
On July 30, 2015,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36930/#review93680
---
Ship it!
Could you make a comment that port mapping doesn't need
On July 31, 2015, 12:05 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/authentication_tests.cpp, line 199
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36958/diff/2/?file=1025323#file1025323line199
s/,/ than Credential::principal/ ?
s/when/even when/ ?
do we already have a test for when
On July 30, 2015, 5:14 p.m., haosdent huang wrote:
src/tests/fetcher_tests.cpp, line 332
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36946/diff/1/?file=1025117#file1025117line332
```
// Tests whether fetcher can process URIs that contain leading
whitespace
```
Does this patch
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36821/#review93557
---
Ship it!
- Alexander Rojas
On July 29, 2015, 7:40 p.m., haosdent
On July 29, 2015, 1:01 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 399
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36663/diff/5/?file=1021578#file1021578line399
`ip` and `port` are required, while `address` is optional. Is it
intentional / doesn't it introduce a pitfall?
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36197/#review93558
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Adam B
On July 28, 2015, 11:02 a.m., Bernd
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36946/
---
Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske and Klaus Ma.
Bugs: MESOS-3023
On July 30, 2015, 12:28 p.m., Chris Heller wrote:
It's unclear what failed in that auto build. It appears unrelated
(potentially). As a test I pulled my branch, and rebased from master, then
configured a build and ran `make -j3 distcheck` and was successful in
building. Can the auto
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32587/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 12:54 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Adam B and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36947/#review93619
---
Ship it!
Note that subprocess is in libprocess rather than stout
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36947/#review93622
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36947]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36819/#review93552
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36819]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/#review93599
---
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp (lines 19 - 24)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32587/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 12:18 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Adam B and
On July 30, 2015, 5:03 a.m., Adam B wrote:
src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1240
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32587/diff/5/?file=1023551#file1023551line1240
Maybe not a CHECK, since that would kill the slave. How about just
logging an error and, if you're feeling generous, maybe sending
On July 30, 2015, 9:24 a.m., Adam B wrote:
src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1243-1245
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32587/diff/6/?file=1025122#file1025122line1243
Maybe just warn and leave the CopyFrom there?
Next release, we'll remove the field entirely, and consequently this
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36946/#review93605
---
src/tests/fetcher_tests.cpp (line 332)
On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/diff/1/?file=1024924#file1024924line19
why did you remove these headers?
i think we decided to explicitly include all the headers that are
On July 30, 2015, 12:49 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
Kept the validation error composition per our offline discussion, returning for
each case individually led to really verbose code, and we looked at using a
lambda to leverage 'return', but this seemed to be the simplest route for now.
On
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36927/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 10:16 p.m.)
Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36625/#review93671
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 29, 2015, 11:18
On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/diff/1/?file=1024924#file1024924line19
why did you remove these headers?
i think we decided to explicitly include all the headers that are
On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/diff/1/?file=1024924#file1024924line19
why did you remove these headers?
i think we decided to explicitly include all the headers that are
Well, it does seem easier to maintain includes if we rely on the parent
header demonstrating intent to provide symbols (e.g. adding a vector to an
interface does not require adding includes in all child files).
If it provides significant speedup to build times, it would be very
compelling!
How
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36947/
---
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, and Vinod Kone.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36811/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 9:47 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Adam B, Cody
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36821/#review93567
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36821]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36821/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 9:29 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Adam B and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36810/#review93565
---
Ship it!
LGTM. Any build experts want to take a look? @tstclair,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36821/#review93561
---
Ship it!
Looks great! Unless anybody has any objections, I can
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36821/
---
(Updated July 30, 2015, 9:29 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Adam B and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36811/#review93570
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36810, 36811]
All tests
56 matches
Mail list logo
