Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

> On Jan. 27, 2017, 5:17 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1580 > > > > > > If we're going to change this, there are a few other places that should > > also be changed: e.g., lines 1179, 1226,

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/#review163288 --- Fix it, then Ship it! Variable naming still seems

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/#review163261 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [55876] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/ --- (Updated Jan. 27, 2017, 11:52 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar,

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/ --- (Updated Jan. 27, 2017, 11:39 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar,

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

> On Jan. 24, 2017, 6:14 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1579 > > > > > > I feel like we use an underscore suffix (`task_`) more often than a > > prefix. Is there a rule here? >From the

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/#review162836 --- src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1579)

Re: Review Request 55876: Avoided shadowing in `Slave::run()`.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55876/#review162824 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gastón Kleiman On Jan. 24, 2017, 2:54