> On April 18, 2018, 2:51 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > docs/scheduler-http-api.md
> > Lines 426-428 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/1/?file=2005687#file2005687line426>
> >
> > This call requires the `Accept` header, right?
It technically doesn't require the header, but if one is set, it should contain json or protobuf.
Anyway, I added the header here for consistency with the other examples.
> On April 18, 2018, 2:51 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > docs/scheduler-http-api.md
> > Lines 434-439 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/1/?file=2005687#file2005687line434>
> >
> > Should we include the `resource_provider_id` field here, since the MVP is RP
resource-only?
Nope, the resource provider id field is not needed (and will be ignored) when reconciling
operations. It is there for when we support ERPS.
- Gaston
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/#review201466
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 2018, 3:15 p.m., Gaston Kleiman wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 18, 2018, 3:15 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos and Greg Mann.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Updated Scheduler HTTP API doc for operation feedback.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> docs/scheduler-http-api.md 3929c33781a152428338c4cdaf7dbc47da7c875e
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/2/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gaston Kleiman
>
>
|