> 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.
> >
> 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.
> >
> 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
> 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.
> >
> 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.
> >
> 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.
> >
---
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
---
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:
---
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
---
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
10 matches
Mail list logo