> On Nov. 11, 2014, 11:39 a.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/timer.hpp, line 14
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27496/diff/1/?file=747095#file747095line14>
> >
> >     I would really love more documentation on these concepts. I see that 
> > the timer class had static functions as a kind of factory and we are now 
> > moving that to clock. Would it make sense to throw in a comment on the 
> > timer class, now that we removed some of it's responsibility?

The patch doesn't build alone. You are probably going to commit all at once, 
but maybe the build bot will complain eventually?


- Niklas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27496/#review60832
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 11, 2014, 8:52 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/27496/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 11, 2014, 8:52 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, Joris Van Remoortere, Niklas 
> Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/c++11/delay.hpp 
> 5f686db1df50829a5aad76eb91ea6a86e8969c1d 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/clock.hpp 
> eb157cac996c48fedc69002b9d80adaba1ed85d1 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/delay.hpp 
> 487f652c9e9b7c8c3aa8b4edc9e59789cffd8da9 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp 
> 46ae16b0bbce79005f5ed8711be663eeeb8f4bcf 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/timer.hpp 
> e2f55636b520d43a8c9efa28ad4fe5f75c4f5573 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> 85fb9958342f0bcdde322d9c55333126e6f86668 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27496/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to