Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107982 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [39320] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107901 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Guangya Liu On 十一月 24, 2015, 3:57 p.m.,

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107800 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Neil Conway On Nov. 24, 2015, 3:57 p.m.,

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Nov. 24, 2015, 3:58 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp, line 720 > > > > > > I'd remove this comment -- various other places use the same pattern. > > I'd also remove the newline

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Nov. 24, 2015, 3:58 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp, line 720 > > > > > > I'd remove this comment -- various other places use the same pattern. > > I'd also remove the newline

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107748 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Bernd Mathiske On Nov. 23, 2015, 9:52

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Nov. 24, 2015, 1:52 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp, line 778 > > > > > > You should just use `master::Flags().allocation_interval` to simplify > > this. Do you think it

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Nov. 23, 2015, 6:45 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > An alternative would be to pause and advance the clock by the > > allocation_interval. Do you think that would be worth doing instead? That's correct. I was not sure what approach is easier to understand. After you input I have checked the

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107780 --- src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp (line 778)

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/ --- (Updated Nov. 24, 2015, 1:13 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier,

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Nov. 23, 2015, 6:45 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > An alternative would be to pause and advance the clock by the > > allocation_interval. Do you think that would be worth doing instead? > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > That's correct. I was not sure what approach is easier to

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107793 --- src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp (line 720)

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107794 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Benjamin Bannier On Nov. 24, 2015, 3:57

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107664 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [39320] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review107625 --- An alternative would be to pause and advance the clock by the

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/ --- (Updated Oct. 16, 2015, 11:44 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

> On Oct. 15, 2015, 11:37 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp, line 721 > > > > > > I don't think hardcoding specific timeouts here is optimal ... there's > > nothing here that

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review102774 --- src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp (line 721)

Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/ --- Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Bernd Mathiske, and Till Toenshoff.

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review102670 --- Bad patch! Reviews applied: [39320] Failed command:

Re: Review Request 39320: Speeded up the test by reducing the allocation timeout.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39320/#review102647 --- src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp (line 719)