---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36389/#review92221
---
Apologies for the delay on the review. Let's definitely get a test
On July 20, 2015, 4:20 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
Apologies for the delay on the review. Let's definitely get a test for this
stuff too!
Ben, not sure if you see my comments. I am not convinced this should be part of
Mesos. Should we reach a consensus first before moving this forward?
On July 15, 2015, 12:36 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
src/slave/slave.cpp, line 4755
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36389/diff/4/?file=1011886#file1011886line4755
Shouldn't there be an equivalent of an assert here if we never expect
this to happen? Something like this:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36389/#review91723
---
src/slave/flags.hpp (line 117)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36389/#review91784
---
To make sure that this is fool proof(ish), I would suggest that
On July 15, 2015, 6:13 p.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
To make sure that this is fool proof(ish), I would suggest that this should
only ship only when the Authorizer framework (mentioned in the TODO
comment) becomes available. Also, I would add a screaming comment to
--usage,
On July 14, 2015, 11:21 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
Discussed with Cody on the design doc. Does it make sense to implement that
as an anonymous module?
Can you please elaborate on the pros/cons of doing so?
thanks!
- Marco
---
This is an
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36389/#review91678
---
Discussed with Cody on the design doc. Does it make sense to
