Re: Review Request 23147: Rename slaves/frameworks activated/deactivated

2014-07-08 Thread Adam B
On June 29, 2014, 11:44 p.m., Adam B wrote: src/master/master.hpp, lines 852-854 https://reviews.apache.org/r/23147/diff/1/?file=620067#file620067line852 // We mark a slave 'inactive' ... bool active; Alexandra Sava wrote: I have some concerns in changing this. As the

Re: Review Request 23147: Rename slaves/frameworks activated/deactivated

2014-07-08 Thread Adam B
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23147/#review47434 --- src/master/allocator.hpp

Re: Review Request 22980: Enable support for existing cgroups, don't always try to create.

2014-07-08 Thread Timothy St. Clair
On June 25, 2014, 10:09 p.m., Ian Downes wrote: src/slave/containerizer/isolators/cgroups/cpushare.cpp, line 236 https://reviews.apache.org/r/22980/diff/1/?file=617510#file617510line236 Why would the cgroup already exist? The cgroup is based on the containerId which should be

Re: Review Request 23224: Refactored the python bindings into multiple modules.

2014-07-08 Thread Thomas Rampelberg
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/ --- (Updated July 8, 2014, 5:05 p.m.) Review request for mesos. Changes ---

Re: Review Request 22981: enable co-mounting of cpu cpuacct for systemd

2014-07-08 Thread Timothy St. Clair
On June 27, 2014, 9:21 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: src/linux/cgroups.cpp, lines 453-463 https://reviews.apache.org/r/22981/diff/1/?file=617552#file617552line453 I don't think this is going to work. First off, the cpushare isolator needs to be made aware of the co-mounted

Re: Review Request 23224: Refactored the python bindings into multiple modules.

2014-07-08 Thread Mesos ReviewBot
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/#review47454 --- Bad patch! Reviews applied: [23224] Failed command: make -j3

Jenkins build is back to normal : mesos-reviewbot #1089

2014-07-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server
See https://builds.apache.org/job/mesos-reviewbot/1089/

Re: Review Request 23224: Refactored the python bindings into multiple modules.

2014-07-08 Thread Thomas Rampelberg
On July 8, 2014, 5:20 p.m., Mesos ReviewBot wrote: Bad patch! Reviews applied: [23224] Failed command: make -j3 distcheck Error: if test -d mesos-0.20.0; then find mesos-0.20.0 -type d ! -perm -200 -exec chmod u+w {} ';' rm -rf mesos-0.20.0 || { sleep 5 rm -rf

Re: Review Request 23224: Refactored the python bindings into multiple modules.

2014-07-08 Thread Thomas Rampelberg
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/ --- (Updated July 8, 2014, 5:58 p.m.) Review request for mesos. Bugs: MESOS-857

Re: Review Request 23224: Refactored the python bindings into multiple modules.

2014-07-08 Thread Mesos ReviewBot
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23224/#review47461 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [23224] All tests passed. -

Review Request 23348: Upgrading Mesos version from 0.18.0 to 0.19.0

2014-07-08 Thread Dominic Hamon
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23348/ --- Review request for mesos, Joe Smith, Kevin Sweeney, and Bill Farner.

Re: Review Request 23348: Upgrading Mesos version from 0.18.0 to 0.19.0

2014-07-08 Thread Vinod Kone
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23348/#review47473 --- 3rdparty/python/BUILD

Re: Review Request 23348: Upgrading Mesos version from 0.18.0 to 0.19.0

2014-07-08 Thread Vinod Kone
On July 8, 2014, 11:15 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: 3rdparty/python/BUILD, line 30 https://reviews.apache.org/r/23348/diff/1/?file=625775#file625775line30 we need to promote this egg internally first. i will promote it:

Re: Review Request 23348: Upgrading Mesos version from 0.18.0 to 0.19.0

2014-07-08 Thread Mesos ReviewBot
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23348/#review47477 --- Bad patch! Reviews applied: [23348] Failed command: git apply