Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/#review93917 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Vinod Kone On July 31, 2015, 10:23 p.m., Jie

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/ --- (Updated July 31, 2015, 10:23 p.m.) Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

> On July 30, 2015, 9:45 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37 > > > > > > why did you remove these headers? > > > > i think we decided to explicitly include all the he

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

aha, I just thought it might slow down the compilation. But looks like it will not given the optimization. I guess clang should have the same optimization as well. The burden of updating the headers while doing refactor is real. It'll be really cool if we can automate this. BTW: the code base is

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

Jie, I thought that duplicate includes of headers don't have a significant impact on compile times given our include guards, why do you say it slows down the compilation? e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cppinternals/Guard-Macros.html On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Vinod Kone wrote: > > >

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

> On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37 > > > > > > why did you remove these headers? > > > > i think we decided to explicitly include all the he

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

Well, it does seem easier to maintain includes if we rely on the parent header demonstrating intent to provide symbols (e.g. adding a vector to an interface does not require adding includes in all child files). If it provides significant speedup to build times, it would be very compelling! How do

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

> On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37 > > > > > > why did you remove these headers? > > > > i think we decided to explicitly include all the he

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

> On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37 > > > > > > why did you remove these headers? > > > > i think we decided to explicitly include all the he

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

> On July 30, 2015, 4:45 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp, lines 19-37 > > > > > > why did you remove these headers? > > > > i think we decided to explicitly include all the he

Re: Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/#review93599 --- src/tests/containerizer/launcher.hpp (lines 19 - 24)

Review Request 36929: Fixed a few issues in test launcher header.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36929/ --- Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone. Repository: mesos Description --