----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20080/#review39674 -----------------------------------------------------------
Is this RR really dependent on r19795, r18403? It seems to me that we could land this independently (while the others are in flight). include/mesos/mesos.proto <https://reviews.apache.org/r/20080/#comment72243> s/ that may be used// ? src/slave/containerizer/mesos_containerizer.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/20080/#comment72244> Can we condense this a bit? For example, "We should expose available containerization mechanisms so frameworks can avoid attempts to run unsupported containers." Don't know if that got any better, but had to read the current comment a couple of times :) - Niklas Nielsen On April 7, 2014, 6:19 a.m., Till Toenshoff wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/20080/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 7, 2014, 6:19 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ian Downes, Niklas Nielsen, and > Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Introduces the ContainerInfo protobuf as part of CommandInfo. > Right now, if present, the mesos containerizer fails the task launch to point > out that we do not support it on that containerizer. > > This will be needed for the ExternalContainerizer and possibly other > containerizers as well. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 37f8a7f > src/slave/containerizer/mesos_containerizer.cpp c819c97 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20080/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Till Toenshoff > >
