> On Aug. 17, 2015, 11:01 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > In the same vein as os::shell, we should probably introduce an 'os'
> > namespace in libprocess for asynchronous os utilities. In this case,
> > process::os::shell which returns a Future of the output (although, ideally
> > ).
Sounds good.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37336/#review95658
---
In the same vein as os::shell, we should probably introduce an 'os'
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37336/
---
(Updated Aug. 15, 2015, 2:02 a.m.)
Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37336/
---
(Updated Aug. 14, 2015, 8:20 a.m.)
Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37336/
---
(Updated Aug. 14, 2015, 8:17 a.m.)
Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoo
