Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 9, 2017, 2 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp > > Lines 153 (patched) > > > > > > + @kapil > > > > It's sad to see that raw pointer has been

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 8, 2017, 5:17 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > Updated summary/description to "SecretResolver" ah, missed that. - Gilbert --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 8, 2017, 5:17 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.hpp > > Lines 77 (patched) > > > > > > is the default needed here to avoid updating tests? yes. - Gilbert

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 5, 2017, 4:55 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > Should we use a shared pointer for `SecretResolver` instead of passing a > > `SecretResolver*` around? > > Vinod Kone wrote: > +1. Since provisioner and env isolator are both sharing the pointer, it's > probably worth having the

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 8, 2017, 5:17 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/docker/puller.hpp > > Lines 48 (patched) > > > > > > no need for a default? it does not hurt here. but we should set a

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/#review174280 --- src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp Lines

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

> On May 5, 2017, 11:55 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > Should we use a shared pointer for `SecretResolver` instead of passing a > > `SecretResolver*` around? +1. Since provisioner and env isolator are both sharing the pointer, it's probably worth having the containerizer take in a shared

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/#review174251 --- Updated summary/description to "SecretResolver"

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/#review174103 --- Should we use a shared pointer for `SecretResolver` instead of

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/ --- (Updated May 5, 2017, 4:16 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Adam B, Chun-Hung

Re: Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/ --- (Updated May 5, 2017, 1:30 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Adam B, Chun-Hung

Review Request 59012: Implemented passing the secret fetcher to registry puller.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59012/ --- Review request for mesos, Adam B, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Jie Yu, Kapil Arya, Till