Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42860/#review141581 --- Closing this review due to inactivity. Please see our

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42860/ --- (Updated March 29, 2016, 5:33 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

> On March 29, 2016, 3:30 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 127 > > > > > > What does "flat" mean, here? Also, is it worth adding a `CHECK` that > > all

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42860/ --- (Updated March 29, 2016, 8:56 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42860/#review125801 --- Made a few quick comments. I didn't look at the

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

> On March 21, 2016, 5:29 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 70 > > > > > > `if (paths.empty()) { ... }` seems like a clearer way to write this. @neic,

Re: Review Request 42860: Add paths::overlapping to check whether paths are overlapping.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42860/ --- (Updated March 29, 2016, 2:30 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin