---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 10:25 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 10:20 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 12:33 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 11:58 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
On Aug. 26, 2015, 11:04 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto, line 56
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/15/?file=1053335#file1053335line56
I'm not sure `0` is a valid protobuf tag.
After double checking the docs... It is valid for
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96746
---
Ship it!
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto (line 54)
On Aug. 27, 2015, 6:04 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto, line 56
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/15/?file=1053335#file1053335line56
I'm not sure `0` is a valid protobuf tag.
Joseph Wu wrote:
After double checking the
On Aug. 27, 2015, 6:04 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto, lines 31-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/15/?file=1053335#file1053335line31
IIUC, here you group a bunch of machines based on time intervals. Why
this grouping is
On Aug. 26, 2015, 11:04 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto, lines 31-37
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/15/?file=1053335#file1053335line31
IIUC, here you group a bunch of machines based on time intervals. Why
this grouping is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 4:41 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96642
---
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto (lines 31 - 37)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96796
---
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto (lines 37 - 39)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 27, 2015, 5:57 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,
On Aug. 26, 2015, 9:57 a.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
A higher level wording question: Do we want to be consistent with `Mode` vs
`Status`, or did you explicitly use different words? For example, we could
change `MaintenanceStatus` to `MaintenanceModes`. I'm not necessarily
saying
On Aug. 26, 2015, 10:44 a.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
src/master/registry.proto, line 45
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/14/?file=1048534#file1048534line45
Should we call this `info` or rename the type to `MachineId`?
I think I can rename this to `machine_info` (to
On Aug. 26, 2015, 9:57 a.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto, line 33
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/14/?file=1048531#file1048531line33
Why the choice of repeated `MachineInfo` over `MachineInfos`?
Mostly because of how this is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 26, 2015, 11:35 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96562
---
src/master/registry.proto (line 45)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96530
---
A higher level wording question: Do we want to be consistent with
On Aug. 25, 2015, 6:04 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 111
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/14/?file=1048532#file1048532line111
Can you please show a case why end user want to hold more agents on a
single machine? This may cause resource overcommit
On Aug. 24, 2015, 11:04 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 111
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/diff/14/?file=1048532#file1048532line111
Can you please show a case why end user want to hold more agents on a
single machine? This may cause resource
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96359
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Guangya Liu
On Aug. 24, 2015, 6:33 p.m.,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/#review96301
---
include/mesos/maintenance/maintenance.proto (line 19)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36571/
---
(Updated Aug. 24, 2015, 11:33 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
24 matches
Mail list logo
