Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-31 Thread Ben Mahler 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review97133
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (lines 140 - 154)


Should this have been:

```
message Interval {
  required TimeInfo start;
  optional DurationInfo duration;
}

message Unavailability {
  required Interval interval;
  
  // Add additional fields related to unavailability.
}
```

Curious if we're going to have to duplicate Interval elsewhere.



include/mesos/mesos.proto (lines 949 - 963)


Does this need to be required? For example, if we'd like to do ASAP 
de-allocation in the future, what would that look like?

Would we be omitting an unavailability? Or would we be setting the start 
time to 'now'? Also, would we need additional information in the inverse offer 
(e.g. hard vs soft?). Food for thought.


- Ben Mahler


On Aug. 28, 2015, 5:11 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 5:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
> Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
> MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
> 
> Also copied to v1 API.
> 
> No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
> see MESOS-1474).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto c40a09b2bb2b9444e9b90e86eefe6fc8f98b613d 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto ee15b9ae70aeb8cf803ea7e4b06f4443bd7bc9e2 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-31 Thread Joseph Wu 


> On Aug. 31, 2015, 1:06 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 140-154
> > 
> >
> > Should this have been:
> > 
> > ```
> > message Interval {
> >   required TimeInfo start;
> >   optional DurationInfo duration;
> > }
> > 
> > message Unavailability {
> >   required Interval interval;
> >   
> >   // Add additional fields related to unavailability.
> > }
> > ```
> > 
> > Curious if we're going to have to duplicate Interval elsewhere.

It was difficult to decide which combination of required/optional was 
appropriate for a generic `Interval` message.

Would it be a strict definition (required start and duration), the existing one 
(required start, optional duration, no duration == infinite), or a lax one 
(optional start and duration)?  Each definition has slightly different 
connotations and I didn't want to lock `Interval` into any one of them, just 
because we use it for this feature.


> On Aug. 31, 2015, 1:06 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 949-963
> > 
> >
> > Does this need to be required? For example, if we'd like to do ASAP 
> > de-allocation in the future, what would that look like?
> > 
> > Would we be omitting an unavailability? Or would we be setting the 
> > start time to 'now'? Also, would we need additional information in the 
> > inverse offer (e.g. hard vs soft?). Food for thought.

Note: In the MVP, the "emergency" maintenance workflow is still to go from UP 
-> DRAINING -> DOWN (Normal -> Draining -> Deactivated, if we use the design 
doc's terminology), with an Unavailability set to "now".  

The unavailability is required because:
* We want as much info as possible.  And it's not painful to supply.
* The master uses (the presence of) Unavailability for some logic.  If we 
didn't have it required, we might end up with an awkward 
`Option

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-28 Thread Joris Van Remoortere 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96866
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 876)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment152548

In your last diff, you changed a bunch of `window` to `interval`. Do you 
want to change this one as well? If not, are you sure you wanted all the 
`window` to `interval` changes in diff 13-14?


- Joris Van Remoortere


On Aug. 27, 2015, 10:46 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 10:46 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 715b8cf38e1e56c18a3f2ddbb82c920bd9414f05 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-28 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 27, 2015, 1:06 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 926-927
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/13/?file=1053309#file1053309line926
 
  Why do we need the URL? Can we comment for folks so they know what they 
  might need/use this for?

Added some explanation.  We can probably update the URL field in `Offer` with 
the same comment, separately.


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96743
---


On Aug. 28, 2015, 10:11 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 10:11 a.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto c40a09b2bb2b9444e9b90e86eefe6fc8f98b613d 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto ee15b9ae70aeb8cf803ea7e4b06f4443bd7bc9e2 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-28 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 28, 2015, 7:49 a.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 877
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/13-14/?file=1053309#file1053309line877
 
  In your last diff, you changed a bunch of `window` to `interval`. Do 
  you want to change this one as well? If not, are you sure you wanted all 
  the `window` to `interval` changes in diff 13-14?

Missed that one.  Good catch :)

I'm changing all the synonyms I use to describe unavailability (period, window, 
interval, range, etc) just to interval, for clarity.


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96866
---


On Aug. 28, 2015, 10:11 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 10:11 a.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto c40a09b2bb2b9444e9b90e86eefe6fc8f98b613d 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto ee15b9ae70aeb8cf803ea7e4b06f4443bd7bc9e2 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-27 Thread Benjamin Hindman 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96743
---

Ship it!



include/mesos/mesos.proto (lines 926 - 927)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment152381

Why do we need the URL? Can we comment for folks so they know what they 
might need/use this for?


- Benjamin Hindman


On Aug. 26, 2015, 5:46 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 26, 2015, 5:46 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-27 Thread Joseph Wu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
---

(Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 3:46 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.


Changes
---

Update Unavailability to use the TimeInfo and DurationInfo.  Commenting tweaks.


Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066


Repository: mesos


Description
---

MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.

Also copied to v1 API.

No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
see MESOS-1474).


Diffs (updated)
-

  include/mesos/mesos.proto 715b8cf38e1e56c18a3f2ddbb82c920bd9414f05 
  include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-26 Thread Guangya Liu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96508
---

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Guangya Liu


On Aug. 25, 2015, 10:53 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 10:53 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Guangya Liu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96366
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 914)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151698

Got it.



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 939)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151696

Thanks Joe! Got it, but I think that it is better that we can add some 
notes here to be more clear


- Guangya Liu


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 939
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line939
 
  Can you please elaborate more for why in maintaince purpose, this 
  field is always empty? Why cannot an operator set the resources that s/he 
  want to inverse?

Two reasons:

* Maintenance primitives is currently an MVP.  So an operator can only schedule 
a whole machine.  We have plans for finer granularity, but that's not 
implemented yet.
* InverseOffers are not maintenance-specific.  We mention maintenance in the 
comment because this functionality is built-in.


 On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 914
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line914
 
  s/(i.e. which slave)/(i.e. which framework)
  
  I think that the comments for this may need to be updated as here if no 
  framework id is specified, then all framework's resources will be request 
  back.

The language here is correct.  

As with offers, the `required FrameworkID` is required and designates the 
framework receiving the offer.  Since only one framework receives an offer at 
once, it does not make sense to tell one framework to deallocate resources from 
another framework.


 On Aug. 24, 2015, 5:57 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 125
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line125
 
  Unavailability is a time interval or period, but from the name of 
  Unavailability, someone may not able to understand it specifies the time 
  interval or period for maintain. What about using name 
  UnavailableInterval or UnavailablePeriod which might be more meaningful?

Availability, semantically, already includes a concept of time (i.e. When 
are you available?).


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96259
---


On Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Joseph Wu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
---

(Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 8:24 a.m.)


Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.


Changes
---

Change Unavailability to use TimeSpec for time.  Copy over to V1 API.


Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066


Repository: mesos


Description
---

MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.

No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
see MESOS-1474).


Diffs (updated)
-

  include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
  include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Alexander Rukletsov 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96126
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 123)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151360

Let's add a comment saying it's not a generic range, but a range relative 
to unavailability event. I think the reason you do not use a more generic name 
is that you plan to add specific fields in the future. If this is the case, 
let's reflect it in the comment for posterity. If it's not, let's rename the 
message for something more general : ).



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 129)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151359

For consistency, please one space between sentences! Here and below.



include/mesos/mesos.proto (lines 847 - 850)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151361

As per my comment for `InverseOffers`, let's clarify the contract and 
guarantees here.


- Alexander Rukletsov


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Alexander Rukletsov 


 On Aug. 21, 2015, 6:35 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 917-920
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line917
 
  I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how 
  about something more generic, like `Period`?
  
  I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses 
  InverseOffers to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we 
  need a timeout, which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. 
  Given we don't need duration in this case, the name can be misleading for 
  users.
 
 Joseph Wu wrote:
 A while ago, I posted a few diffs where this object was called `Interval` 
 (https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/7/).  The reason why it was changed 
 back to `Unavailability` is that we may wish to extend this object to be more 
 specific, in the future.
 
 (We've already removed all the maintenance-specific language in the 
 comments for `Unavailability` and `InverseOffer`.)
 
 Taking your example, the custom allocator asks for resources back.  It 
 says that these will be unavailable by the `start` time.  Duration is 
 optional; in the case of maintenance, when `duration` is omitted, it means 
 the duration is forever or unknown.
 I think the term also works for non-maintenance uses.
 
 Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
 For me unavailability implies the resources will be given back once the 
 period (interval) is over. Unless resource are reserved, this is not the 
 case, since allocator has no obligations to offer resources to prior users 
 once unavailability period is over.
 
 In an offline conversation, Joris pointed out, that unavailability events 
 are mostly interesting for stateful frameworks, which most probably will have 
 reservations for resources. If you plan to leave current term, could you 
 please reflect in the comment what unavailability guarantees and what it does 
 not?
 
 Joseph Wu wrote:
 Updated the comments.  Let me know what you think.

I think the comment is great: brief and clear. One thing I'm not sure about is 
whether it should be placed in the `InverseOffer` message, since there is a 
similar field in `ResourceOffer`. Maybe it makes sense to pull it up to the 
`Unavailability` definition and leave a reference to it in both places, where 
`unavailability` is used.


- Alexander


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073
---


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Alexander Rukletsov 


 On Aug. 25, 2015, 9:55 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 847-850
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line847
 
  As per my comment for `InverseOffers`, let's clarify the contract and 
  guarantees here.

Or, as I said earlier, we can pull the contarct description out and reference 
it here.


- Alexander


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96126
---


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:24 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Joseph Wu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
---

(Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:53 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.


Changes
---

Commenting changes and clarifications.


Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066


Repository: mesos


Description (updated)
---

MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.

Also copied to v1 API.

No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
see MESOS-1474).


Diffs (updated)
-

  include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
  include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 25, 2015, 2:55 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 129
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line129
 
  For consistency, please one space between sentences! Here and below.

The codebase isn't consistent in this respect.  But grammatically, 2 spaces is 
correct (notice that the ASF license text uses 2 spaces).


 On Aug. 25, 2015, 2:55 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 847-850
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line847
 
  As per my comment for `InverseOffers`, let's clarify the contract and 
  guarantees here.
 
 Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
 Or, as I said earlier, we can pull the contarct description out and 
 reference it here.

I actually left it out on purpose.  

The Unavailability in an Offer is a nugget of extra information about the 
resources.  The presence of the unavailability shouldn't drastically alter how 
frameworks perceive the offer; an offer is still meant to be an allocation.  If 
we put too much of the contract/guarantee logic into the offer, it'll start 
sounding like an offer for deallocation (that's what the InverseOffer is for).


 On Aug. 25, 2015, 2:55 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 123
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line123
 
  Let's add a comment saying it's not a generic range, but a range 
  relative to unavailability event. I think the reason you do not use a more 
  generic name is that you plan to add specific fields in the future. If this 
  is the case, let's reflect it in the comment for posterity. If it's not, 
  let's rename the message for something more general : ).

I'll add a comment *and* a TODO :)


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96126
---


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:53 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:53 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-25 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 25, 2015, 10:21 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 939
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/10/?file=1048529#file1048529line939
 
  Thanks Joe! Got it, but I think that it is better that we can add some 
  notes here to be more clear

Next time, please continue the discussion thread (and re-open the issue) 
instead of adding a new comment.

I'll expand on the sentence a bit.


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96366
---


On Aug. 25, 2015, 3:53 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 25, 2015, 3:53 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 Also copied to v1 API.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto 382b978dca769757171c5558b7f259870592c321 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-24 Thread Joseph Wu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
---

(Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m.)


Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.


Changes
---

Added Resources list back to InverseOffer.  Added to comment about 
InverseOffer Unavailability, noting the expectations of resources after 
unavailability.


Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066


Repository: mesos


Description
---

MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.

No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
see MESOS-1474).


Diffs (updated)
-

  include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-24 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 21, 2015, 11:35 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 917-920
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line917
 
  I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how 
  about something more generic, like `Period`?
  
  I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses 
  InverseOffers to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we 
  need a timeout, which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. 
  Given we don't need duration in this case, the name can be misleading for 
  users.
 
 Joseph Wu wrote:
 A while ago, I posted a few diffs where this object was called `Interval` 
 (https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/7/).  The reason why it was changed 
 back to `Unavailability` is that we may wish to extend this object to be more 
 specific, in the future.
 
 (We've already removed all the maintenance-specific language in the 
 comments for `Unavailability` and `InverseOffer`.)
 
 Taking your example, the custom allocator asks for resources back.  It 
 says that these will be unavailable by the `start` time.  Duration is 
 optional; in the case of maintenance, when `duration` is omitted, it means 
 the duration is forever or unknown.
 I think the term also works for non-maintenance uses.
 
 Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
 For me unavailability implies the resources will be given back once the 
 period (interval) is over. Unless resource are reserved, this is not the 
 case, since allocator has no obligations to offer resources to prior users 
 once unavailability period is over.
 
 In an offline conversation, Joris pointed out, that unavailability events 
 are mostly interesting for stateful frameworks, which most probably will have 
 reservations for resources. If you plan to leave current term, could you 
 please reflect in the comment what unavailability guarantees and what it does 
 not?

Updated the comments.  Let me know what you think.


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073
---


On Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:26 a.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-24 Thread Guangya Liu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96259
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 125)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151594

Unavailability is a time interval or period, but from the name of 
Unavailability, someone may not able to understand it specifies the time 
interval or period for maintain. What about using name UnavailableInterval or 
UnavailablePeriod which might be more meaningful?



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 914)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151597

s/(i.e. which slave)/(i.e. which framework)

I think that the comments for this may need to be updated as here if no 
framework id is specified, then all framework's resources will be request back.



include/mesos/mesos.proto (line 939)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151598

Can you please elaborate more for why in maintaince purpose, this field is 
always empty? Why cannot an operator set the resources that s/he want to 
inverse?


- Guangya Liu


On 八月 24, 2015, 6:26 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated 八月 24, 2015, 6:26 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 Joris Van Remoortere, and Vinod Kone.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 33e1b28f1ccbe227657a14395f81df20e0a9e193 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-23 Thread Alexander Rukletsov 


 On Aug. 21, 2015, 6:35 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 917-920
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line917
 
  I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how 
  about something more generic, like `Period`?
  
  I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses 
  InverseOffers to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we 
  need a timeout, which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. 
  Given we don't need duration in this case, the name can be misleading for 
  users.
 
 Joseph Wu wrote:
 A while ago, I posted a few diffs where this object was called `Interval` 
 (https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/7/).  The reason why it was changed 
 back to `Unavailability` is that we may wish to extend this object to be more 
 specific, in the future.
 
 (We've already removed all the maintenance-specific language in the 
 comments for `Unavailability` and `InverseOffer`.)
 
 Taking your example, the custom allocator asks for resources back.  It 
 says that these will be unavailable by the `start` time.  Duration is 
 optional; in the case of maintenance, when `duration` is omitted, it means 
 the duration is forever or unknown.
 I think the term also works for non-maintenance uses.

For me unavailability implies the resources will be given back once the 
period (interval) is over. Unless resource are reserved, this is not the case, 
since allocator has no obligations to offer resources to prior users once 
unavailability period is over.

In an offline conversation, Joris pointed out, that unavailability events are 
mostly interesting for stateful frameworks, which most probably will have 
reservations for resources. If you plan to leave current term, could you please 
reflect in the comment what unavailability guarantees and what it does not?


- Alexander


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073
---


On Aug. 12, 2015, 10:07 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 12, 2015, 10:07 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 and Joris Van Remoortere.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 8a423a56a341e380434e7df91868f1813024840c 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-21 Thread Alexander Rukletsov 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073
---



include/mesos/mesos.proto (lines 917 - 920)
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#comment151276

I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how about 
something more generic, like `Period`?

I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses InverseOffers 
to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we need a timeout, 
which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. Given we don't need 
duration in this case, the name can be misleading for users.


- Alexander Rukletsov


On Aug. 12, 2015, 10:07 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 12, 2015, 10:07 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 and Joris Van Remoortere.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 8a423a56a341e380434e7df91868f1813024840c 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-21 Thread Joseph Wu 


 On Aug. 21, 2015, 11:35 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
  include/mesos/mesos.proto, lines 917-920
  https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/9/?file=1038857#file1038857line917
 
  I think the name `Unavailability` is too specific to maintenance, how 
  about something more generic, like `Period`?
  
  I'm thinking about a use case, when a custom allocator uses 
  InverseOffers to ask a framework to release resources. In this case, we 
  need a timeout, which is naturally expressed by `unavailability.start`. 
  Given we don't need duration in this case, the name can be misleading for 
  users.

A while ago, I posted a few diffs where this object was called `Interval` 
(https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/7/).  The reason why it was changed 
back to `Unavailability` is that we may wish to extend this object to be more 
specific, in the future.

(We've already removed all the maintenance-specific language in the comments 
for `Unavailability` and `InverseOffer`.)

Taking your example, the custom allocator asks for resources back.  It says 
that these will be unavailable by the `start` time.  Duration is optional; in 
the case of maintenance, when `duration` is omitted, it means the duration is 
forever or unknown.
I think the term also works for non-maintenance uses.


- Joseph


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/#review96073
---


On Aug. 12, 2015, 3:07 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
 
 ---
 This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
 https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
 ---
 
 (Updated Aug. 12, 2015, 3:07 p.m.)
 
 
 Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, 
 and Joris Van Remoortere.
 
 
 Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066
 
 
 Repository: mesos
 
 
 Description
 ---
 
 MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
 MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.
 
 No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
 see MESOS-1474).
 
 
 Diffs
 -
 
   include/mesos/mesos.proto 8a423a56a341e380434e7df91868f1813024840c 
 
 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/
 
 
 Testing
 ---
 
 `make check`
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Joseph Wu

Re: Review Request 36321: Maintenance primitives: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs.

2015-08-12 Thread Joseph Wu 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/
---

(Updated Aug. 12, 2015, 3:07 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, and 
Joris Van Remoortere.


Changes
---

* Add URL to InverseOffer (per https://reviews.apache.org/r/37234/).
* Add comment from https://reviews.apache.org/r/37180/#comment150011 .


Bugs: MESOS-2061 and MESOS-2066
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2061
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2066


Repository: mesos


Description
---

MESOS-2061: Add Unavailability and InverseOffer protobufs declarations.
MESOS-2066: Add the Unavailability field to Offers.

No integration with other components (that part is tracked in separate JIRAs, 
see MESOS-1474).


Diffs (updated)
-

  include/mesos/mesos.proto 8a423a56a341e380434e7df91868f1813024840c 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36321/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Joseph Wu