Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/ --- (Updated Sept. 16, 2014, 6:06 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen,

Re: Review Request 25255: Implement server-driven update commands.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25255/#review53554 --- Ship it! Mark informed me that he intends for this command to not

Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread Maxim Khutornenko
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/#review53555 --- Ship it!

Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/ --- (Updated Sept. 16, 2014, 6:29 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen,

Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
On Sept. 16, 2014, 6:12 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote: src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/http/ui/updateSettings.html, line 41 https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/diff/9/?file=690739#file690739line41 ...forward roll. - this is no longer correct as we use this setting

Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread Kevin Sweeney
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/#review53570 --- Ship it!

Re: Review Request 25259: Add update information to the scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread Maxim Khutornenko
On Sept. 16, 2014, 6:12 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote: src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/http/ui/updateSettings.html, line 41 https://reviews.apache.org/r/25259/diff/9/?file=690739#file690739line41 ...forward roll. - this is no longer correct as we use this setting

Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25710/ --- Review request for Aurora and David McLaughlin. Repository: aurora

Re: Review Request 25529: Add a controller for job updates.

2014-09-16 Thread Kevin Sweeney
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25529/#review53581 --- Ship it!

Re: Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25710/#review53585 --- services.js in the commit I shipped today has two references to

Re: Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
On Sept. 16, 2014, 8:49 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote: services.js in the commit I shipped today has two references to INSTANCES_SKIPPED. Aha, you saw the writing on the wall and snuck in :-P - Bill --- This is an automatically

Re: Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25710/ --- (Updated Sept. 16, 2014, 8:55 p.m.) Review request for Aurora and David

Re: Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
On Sept. 16, 2014, 8:49 p.m., David McLaughlin wrote: services.js in the commit I shipped today has two references to INSTANCES_SKIPPED. Bill Farner wrote: Aha, you saw the writing on the wall and snuck in :-P :) I'm fine with you just punting on changing them and leaving them for

Re: Review Request 25710: Remove the JobUpdateAction.INSTANCE_SKIPPED.

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25710/#review53592 --- Ship it! Ship It! - David McLaughlin On Sept. 16, 2014, 8:55

Re: Review Request 25529: Add a controller for job updates.

2014-09-16 Thread Zameer Manji
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25529/#review53598 --- I'm tapping out of this review. I don't have enough knowledge to

Re: Review Request 25529: Add a controller for job updates.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25529/ --- (Updated Sept. 16, 2014, 9:27 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen,

Re: Review Request 25529: Add a controller for job updates.

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
On Sept. 11, 2014, 11:41 p.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote: Maxim Khutornenko wrote: Non-blocking but I was still waiting on my comments/questions addressed. Wow, sorry about that - i truly thought Kevin was the only remaining ship-it needed :-( Now that we have a straw-man put

Re: Review Request 25721: Asynchronous JS for Scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25721/#review53630 --- This is because the getJobSummary requests is 10KB compared to 1KB

Re: Review Request 25721: Asynchronous JS for Scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread David McLaughlin
On Sept. 17, 2014, 12:52 a.m., Bill Farner wrote: This is because the getJobSummary requests is 10KB compared to 1KB in the sync version. I didn't grok this part. The _request_ is 10 KB? Nonetheless, why does sync/async change data representation in either direction? I took

Re: Review Request 25721: Asynchronous JS for Scheduler UI

2014-09-16 Thread Bill Farner
On Sept. 17, 2014, 12:52 a.m., Bill Farner wrote: This is because the getJobSummary requests is 10KB compared to 1KB in the sync version. I didn't grok this part. The _request_ is 10 KB? Nonetheless, why does sync/async change data representation in either direction? David