Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review128344 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [42705, 44606] Passed

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/ --- (Updated 四月 12, 2016, 5:20 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Guangya Liu, Neil

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

> On 四月 7, 2016, 10:13 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > docs/persistent-volume.md, line 296 > > > > > > Replace "Returns `202 ACCEPTED` which" with "This endpoint returns the > > `202 ACCEPTED` HTTP status code, which

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review127678 --- Fix it, then Ship it! docs/persistent-volume.md (line 296)

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

> On March 18, 2016, 6:51 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > Looks good to me. Couple of things before this can get committed. > > > > --> Have you sent an email to dev/user list about this backwards > > incompatible change? If not, you should. > > > > --> If users are depending on the return code

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review127578 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [42705, 44606] Passed

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/ --- (Updated April 7, 2016, 8:56 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Guangya Liu, Neil

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

> On 三月 18, 2016, 6:51 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > Looks good to me. Couple of things before this can get committed. > > > > --> Have you sent an email to dev/user list about this backwards > > incompatible change? If not, you should. > > > > --> If users are depending on the return code

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

> On March 18, 2016, 6:51 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > Looks good to me. Couple of things before this can get committed. > > > > --> Have you sent an email to dev/user list about this backwards > > incompatible change? If not, you should. > > > > --> If users are depending on the return code

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review124249 --- Looks good to me. Couple of things before this can get committed.

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review122900 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [42705, 44606] Passed

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

> On 三月 10, 2016, 5:21 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/tests/persistent_volume_endpoints_tests.cpp, line 60 > > > > > > "using" directives should be sorted alphabetically. Thanks for the review, has updated the

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/ --- (Updated 三月 10, 2016, 7:11 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Guangya Liu, Neil

Re: Review Request 44606: Returning `202` (Accepted) for /reserve and related endpoints.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44606/#review122879 --- Can you also update the documentation? In particular,