> On June 29, 2015, 11:43 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > docs/reservation.md, line 108 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/diff/12/?file=994059#file994059line108> > > > > I know that we'll want to explicitly specify the role to support future > > multi-role frameworks, but why does this need to be included now?
There were 2 motivations for this. First is what you said, the second was that we can enforce the field to be `required` this way. > On June 29, 2015, 11:43 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > docs/reservation.md, lines 109-110 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/diff/12/?file=994059#file994059line109> > > > > Shouldn't the master be able to determine the principal that this > > frameworkId is currently authenticated as? Why even allow the framework to > > specify a different principal if you're just going to Error? Hm, that's true. This was another situation where I wanted to keep `ReservationInfo.principal` as `required`. > On June 29, 2015, 11:43 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > docs/reservation.md, line 196 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/diff/12/?file=994059#file994059line196> > > > > Could also only unreserve a subset, right? Yeah, that's true. I didn't really mention that part. > On June 29, 2015, 11:43 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > docs/reservation.md, line 309 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/diff/12/?file=994059#file994059line309> > > > > How can there be insufficient resources to unreserve? The simplest case would be: if we have 4 dynamically reserved cpus and the request is to unreserve 6 dynamically reserved cpus. We don't simply unreserve the portion we can. A slightly more complicated case would be: if we have 4 dynamically reserved cpus and the request is to unreserve 4 dynamically reserved cpus, but 2 of them are currently being used. As we don't currently pre-empt tasks, it results in a `Conflict` for us currently. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/#review89824 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 28, 2015, 3:33 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 28, 2015, 3:33 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Jie Yu, and Timothy Chen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2205 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2205 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The Github rendered version is available [here]( > https://github.com/mesosphere/mesos/blob/user-docs/docs/reservation.md) > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/reservation.md PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32982/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Documentation. > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
