Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-09-21 Thread Klaus Ma
> On Aug. 11, 2016, 6:16 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > >

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-09-21 Thread Michael Park
> On Aug. 11, 2016, 10:16 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > >

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-08-24 Thread Guangya Liu
> On 八月 11, 2016, 10:16 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > > That

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-08-12 Thread Klaus Ma
> On Aug. 11, 2016, 6:16 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > >

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-08-11 Thread Michael Park
> On Aug. 11, 2016, 10:16 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > >

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-08-11 Thread Klaus Ma
> On Aug. 11, 2016, 6:16 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this patch? > > Currently, your analysis seems correct that reserved resources are always > > non-revocable. > > However, the current code seems that it'll be more future-proof. > >

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-08-11 Thread Michael Park
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/#review145489 --- Hi Klaus, could you explain what the motivation is for this

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-03-20 Thread Mesos ReviewBot
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/#review124449 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [45081] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-03-20 Thread Klaus Ma
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/ --- (Updated March 20, 2016, 10:06 p.m.) Review request for mesos and Alexander

Review Request 45081: Excluded reserved resources when got nonRevocable resources in stage 1.

2016-03-20 Thread Klaus Ma
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45081/ --- Review request for mesos and Alexander Rukletsov. Repository: mesos