Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/ --- (Updated Nov. 24, 2016, 4:41 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman,

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, lines 242-243 > > > > > > s/docker/the Docker/ > > s/mesos/the Mesos/ Unfortunately, we are very inconsistent, see for example

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 24, 2016, 3:10 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 19 > > > > > > s/reimplement/re-implement/ ? Looks like the original version is corret. See

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review156837 --- Fix it, then Ship it! Great work Alex, love it. As others

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/ --- (Updated Nov. 24, 2016, 11:29 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman,

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 8:34 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 23 > > > > > > I think this would benefit from some more discussion of the high-level > > architecture of Mesos-native health checks.

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 8:34 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 21 > > > > > > Isn't a major advantage of Mesos-native health checks is that you avoid > > the scalability problems of having a

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 8:34 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 21 > > > > > > Isn't a major advantage of Mesos-native health checks is that you avoid > > the scalability problems of having a

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 8:34 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 19 > > > > > > The phrase "incorporating network failures in health check information > > is not always desirable" is vague. What is

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 231 > > > > > > command or binary? I'll go with 'command' for consitency. - Alexander

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 204 > > > > > > s/as first/as a first/ ? I think 'the' suits better, no? - Alexander

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 101 > > > > > > Don't they always enter the network namespace? Not really. Sometimes they don't enter the namespace if it is

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 9, 2016, 5:32 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 29 > > > > > > s/functionality/functionalities/g > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > I believe it is fine to use singular here.

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review156640 --- docs/health-checks.md (line 155)

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review156637 --- docs/health-checks.md (line 159)

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review156617 --- docs/health-checks.md (line 9)

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 9, 2016, 5:32 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 8 > > > > > > `misbehave, or become unresponsive` should be `misbehave or become > > unresponsive`? I think this is better as-is

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/ --- (Updated Nov. 20, 2016, 6:52 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman,

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 49 > > > > > > "an executor knows what a task means"? Will kill that phrase entirely. > On Nov. 10, 2016, 2:44 p.m., Gastón

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

> On Nov. 9, 2016, 5:32 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > docs/health-checks.md, line 29 > > > > > > s/functionality/functionalities/g I believe it is fine to use singular here. That's what my dictionary says: "the

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review155565 --- I am not a native speaker, so please take my suggestions with a

Re: Review Request 53610: Added health checks documentation.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53610/#review155454 --- docs/health-checks.md (line 6)