> On Jan. 14, 2015, 2:09 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/sched/sched.cpp, line 964
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/diff/1/?file=820062#file820062line964>
> >
> >     _pure_ language schedulers

Fixed.


> On Jan. 14, 2015, 2:09 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/sched/sched.cpp, line 1026
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/diff/1/?file=820062#file820062line1026>
> >
> >     This could actually be a duplicate offer ID, but since it's also in the 
> > `launchTasks` code, maybe add a TODO about this in both places?

Added a TODO.


> On Jan. 14, 2015, 2:09 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/sched/sched.cpp, line 1037
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/diff/1/?file=820062#file820062line1037>
> >
> >     This CHECK is strange, given we're in a block defined by 
> > `savedOffers.contains(offerId)` already.

Killed.


- Jie


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/#review68007
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 13, 2015, 11:42 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 13, 2015, 11:42 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler, Michael Park, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Supported accept offers in C++ scheduler driver. I removed a few checks in 
> the new API for LAUNCH because those checks are already done in master.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/sched/sched.cpp 5fee06e3e306c6d8eea6f2efec8b7522b7498e4a 
>   src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp ff6ff115152c9278df6916fe9db432cbf127984e 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29870/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> will add tests to test accept offers later. Sadly, we don't have unit tests 
> for scheduler drivers.
> 
> make check passed
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jie Yu
> 
>

Reply via email to