On July 9, 2015, 2:46 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 48
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line48
It would be good to explain why we are opting this way. How is this
useful? OK, maybe
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35687/#review91113
---
src/master/http.cpp (lines 124 - 125)
On July 9, 2015, 5:49 a.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp, line 40
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36273/diff/1/?file=1001721#file1001721line40
/s/**Note**:/**NOTE:**
The NOTE is already in all caps, as per the Markdown style guide:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35777/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 5:07 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 4:02 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36106/#review91119
---
src/linux/cgroups.hpp (line 445)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35687/#review91128
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [35687]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34138/#review91145
---
src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/hash.hpp (line 40)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 6:49 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Isabel
On July 8, 2015, 6:07 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote:
src/master/http.cpp, line 316
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/1/?file=1002351#file1002351line316
Al the json logic will be handled in the split of 36037 this lines
aren't very useful here
Left the TODO for now as a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36361/
---
Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
Bugs: MESOS-3025
On July 9, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
Also, we need tests!?
- Vinod
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34138/#review91145
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36106/#review91129
---
src/tests/cgroups_tests.cpp (line 1191)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36273/#review91140
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36273]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34139/#review91154
---
tests!?
src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/appc/discovery.hpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35755/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 10:19 p.m.)
Review request for mesos and Joris Van
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36380/#review91263
---
src/tests/perf_tests.cpp (line 40)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36193/#review91086
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Bernd Mathiske
On July 6, 2015, 2:01 a.m.,
On July 1, 2015, 7:05 a.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 44
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line44
Did you check how this displays in the rendered version?
Good point, looks horrible - using a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36041/#review91071
---
Do we have a JIRA issue that would cover this issue? If so, please
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23783/#review91073
---
Ship it!
Looks great, thanks for solving this tedious task.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23784/#review91074
---
Ship it!
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/configure.ac (lines
On July 7, 2015, 2:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 48
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line48
It would be good to explain why we are opting this way. How is this
useful? OK, maybe
On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 39
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line39
Do you mean std::basename()?
Nope, the free C function `basename()` is part of the POSIX
On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 24
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line24
I know that in many other places we have written Basic abstraction,
but this really adds no
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36023/#review91077
---
Ship it!
This is really helpful as it has become a little bit of a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35947/#review91081
---
src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp (line 785)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36216/#review91082
---
Isn't this submitted already?
- Joerg Schad
On July 6, 2015,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36273/#review91096
---
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp (line 40)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36314/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 1:09 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34703/#review91100
---
Ship it!
Will fix the below issue while comitting.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30032/#review91103
---
Ship it!
3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp (line
On July 9, 2015, 7:19 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
Thanks for looking into this Ben - we will shortly propose a fix for the
current test break on Ubuntu and also most of these nits.
- Till
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail.
On July 9, 2015, 2:46 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/#review91204
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36360]
All tests passed.
-
On July 8, 2015, 10:46 p.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
On July 9, 2015, 7:36 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
src/linux/cgroups.hpp, lines 438-447
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36106/diff/4/?file=1000826#file1000826line438
What is the plan for introducing javadoc comments? cgroups.hpp seems
like a reasonable candidate, but we should avoid
On July 9, 2015, 8:23 p.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
src/common/http_constants.cpp, line 26
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/diff/1/?file=1003774#file1003774line26
minor nit-pick , might consider using std::string; before-hand ?
:) done
- Isabel
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 9:07 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar,
On July 9, 2015, 2:46 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36361/#review91203
---
Ship it!
Can you make sure to test this with a 22.x driver and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/#review91205
---
Can you move this into the existing common/http.hpp, and remove the
On July 9, 2015, 2:46 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/#review91169
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36318]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36106/#review91168
---
src/linux/cgroups.hpp (lines 438 - 447)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36361/#review91190
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36361]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30032/#review91149
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (lines 2815 - 2819)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36326/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 8:38 p.m.)
Review request for mesos and Timothy Chen.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36314/#review91162
---
Ship it!
LGTM! Some nits.
src/tests/slave_tests.cpp (line 2258)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/
---
Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Marco
On July 9, 2015, 2:46 a.m., Kapil Arya wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/version.hpp, line 36
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/diff/1/?file=1002978#file1002978line36
Why do we want to rename major/minor/patch to
primary/secondary/tertiary? The former is a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/#review91178
---
Ship it!
LGTM, Just some minor comments.
On July 8, 2015, 9:57 p.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp, line 230
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36326/diff/3/?file=1002973#file1002973line230
I dont' think we need to expose this.
Since the method is a bit long, kept it but replaced other usage methods
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35687/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 4:04 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Marco Massenzio
On July 8, 2015, 5:59 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/master/allocator.hpp, lines 133-135
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35947/diff/1/?file=993649#file993649line133
And we introduce a libprocess dependency into `Allocator` interface. I
think it's a prominent step,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/#review91116
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [35998]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36273/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 9:49 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On July 9, 2015, 9:32 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
Can you move this into the existing common/http.hpp, and remove the content
type one? For content type, would rather see a typed member on
Request/Response than constants here, given the other occurrences:
```
? mesos git:(master) ?
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36380/
---
Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Chi Zhang, Ian Downes, and Cong Wang.
On July 9, 2015, 9:32 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
Can you move this into the existing common/http.hpp, and remove the content
type one? For content type, would rather see a typed member on
Request/Response than constants here, given the other occurrences:
```
? mesos git:(master) ?
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/#review91241
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36360]
All tests passed.
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36360/#review91242
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Marco Massenzio
On July 9, 2015, 10:34
On July 9, 2015, 10:24 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
src/master/http.cpp, lines 311-316
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/2/?file=1003768#file1003768line311
unless you know for a fact that none of this will be `None()` you
*must* check, or this will crash Mesos: hence
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23784/#review91212
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 8, 2015, 8:51
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23783/#review91214
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 9, 2015, 9:59
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/#review91218
---
Ship it!
Thanks for adding the note Paul! Surprised that these are
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36273/#review91220
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 9, 2015, 4:49
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36226/#review91223
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 8, 2015, 8:23
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/#review91213
---
Code looks good!
A few general comments (please address them across
On July 9, 2015, 10:24 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
src/master/http.cpp, line 317
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/2/?file=1003768#file1003768line317
the error is actually 415 Media Not Supported (I think - please double
check)
Same here
- Isabel
On July 9, 2015, 10:24 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
src/master/http.cpp, lines 311-316
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/diff/2/?file=1003768#file1003768line311
unless you know for a fact that none of this will be `None()` you
*must* check, or this will crash Mesos: hence
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36197/#review91232
---
docs/committers.md (line 11)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23783/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 9:59 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
to register without authentication
I0709 22:00:26.233379 14210 sched.cpp:448] Framework registered with
20150709-214514-1828659978-5050-3855-0001
Registered!
Task 1 is in state TASK_LOST
Aborting because task 1 is in unexpected state TASK_LOST with reason 9 from
source 0 with message 'Reconciliation
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36336/
---
(Updated July 9, 2015, 10:06 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36218/#review91219
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Benjamin Hindman
On July 8, 2015, 8:45
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36326/#review91224
---
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [36106, 36326]
All tests
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36197/#review91225
---
Ship it!
LGTM Bernd, let's commit this and ammend as necessary in
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36318/#review91230
---
src/master/http.cpp (line 342)
On July 9, 2015, 10:24 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
Code looks good!
A few general comments (please address them across the entire review - I
stopped making them in every instance):
- no need for leading underscor in argument lists, the private members now
have a trailing one, so
81 matches
Mail list logo
